what would you do if you only have knight and bishop while your opponent just lone king? do you risk the hardest checkmate? or offer a draw with your opponent?
First, there is no risk. You still get a draw if you fail.
Second, as several posts in this thread show, the checkmate is not as tricky as advertised.
what would you do if you only have knight and bishop while your opponent just lone king? do you risk the hardest checkmate? or offer a draw with your opponent?
It depends on how much time is on the clock. I had that in a casual game recently and checkmated in around 24 moves; that is the only time I've had it in a game. So, if I have sufficient time, I'll play it out.
you cant loose
even after blundering all pieces you still have a draw
even after loosing to time you still have a draw
I would take care. In my opinion, have a bishop and a knight in advantage is no guarantee of victory.
My opponent, surely will try at least a statlemate.
It already happened to me when I was playing against some Chess.com bots.
You can have a stalemate if your opponent move 50 times and you dont checkmate him/her (50 moves rules).
I would take care. In my opinion, have a bishop and a knight in advantage is no guarantee of victory.
My opponent, surely will try at least a statlemate.
It already happened to me when I was playing against some Chess.com bots.
You can have a stalemate if your opponent move 50 times and you dont checkmate him/her (50 moves rules).
That's not stalemate. Stalemate occurs only when a player is not in check and has no legal moves.
It is a draw.
"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess before he can checkmate KBN vs. K"
- Capablanca
The person who said that should not be giving advice on chess then. Chess is a game, enjoyed by a lot more beginners than experts. This Capablanca person has no business saying who should, and should not, play.
This would be like someone saying a beginner golfer should not play a round of golf until they can birdie 2 consecutive holes. The KNB v K checkmate is difficult, even accomplished chess players can sometimes have a hard time with it. What a ridiculous statement.
agadmator on youtube has a nice video explaining the general BN technique;
btw yes, the 'W' maneuver is crucial to know.
lol maybe the world champion Capa simply meant that one should focus on endgames above all else.
@technical_knockout
"btw yes, the 'W' maneuver is crucial to know."
Not really.
It's the main part of Philidor's method, christened "the W manoeuvre" by Wikipaedia I think. I still refer to it as Philidor's method because I don't think it's reasonable that Philidor should be written out of the history of the ending at the whim of a Wikipaedia editor.
It's not accurate. Philidor incorporated two cancelling one move inaccuracies for each side.
It can be made accurate by removing these but then it should properly be called "the wonky W manoeuvre".
It would then be only one of rather a lot of accurate ways of transferring the lone king from a corner where he can't be mated to mate in an adjacent corner. It normally starts with a diagram similar to this
which is a zugzwang; White with the move has mate in 20, without the move mate in 19.
It's often described as "how to mate with bishop and knight", but obviously in the whole analysis no positions are considered with a deeper mate than 20 moves.
The average mate depth of positions in this endgame is around 27 moves and the deepest 33 moves.
Morover as I suggested in this post the side with the lone king has an obvious defence against players who have learned Philidor's method by rote, viz. just stay out of the corner.
lol maybe the world champion Capa simply meant that one should focus on endgames above all else.
In the same way a world number one golfer might say one should focus on putting above all else.
Either way, it's pretty ridiculous to suggest a beginner should master a very advanced technique before even playing a game. Chess is a game, meant for fun. It would make sense for masters (who even sometimes struggle with KBN v K endgames) to study it. But not beginners.
lol maybe the world champion Capa simply meant that one should focus on endgames above all else.
In the same way a world number one golfer might say one should focus on putting above all else.
Either way, it's pretty ridiculous to suggest a beginner should master a very advanced technique before even playing a game. Chess is a game, meant for fun. It would make sense for masters (who even sometimes struggle with KBN v K endgames) to study it. But not beginners.
I once downloaded a collection of bishop and knight endgames encountered in recorded games from chessgames.com. All players 2500+; two draws from winning positions out of sixteen games. That didn't include the celebrated botch by Women's world champion Ushenina.
Obviously a lot of people out there playing who shouldn't be.
@technical_knockout
"btw yes, the 'W' maneuver is crucial to know."
Not really.
It's the main part of Philidor's method, christened "the W manoeuvre" by Wikipaedia I think. I still refer to it as Philidor's method because I don't think it's reasonable that Philidor should be written out of the history of the ending at the whim of a Wikipaedia editor.
Interesting contention. Now I'm curious. Who first used the "W" to describe a maneuver that has been taught for two centuries? I'll do some research. Maybe I'll find an answer.
I think if you look through the history of the Wikipaedia topic it first appears quite reasonably as a comment on the description in Müller & Lamprecht, who say it's important to remember the manoeuvre by the knights, which looks like a "W". (Philidor himself drew attention to it.)
M&L don't themselves give it a name.
The Wikipedia editor was apparently so pleased with the phrase that a few revisions later it had risen to a section heading "The Standard W Manoeuvre".
Such is the power of Wikipaedia that Philidor no longer gets a mention in discussions of the endgame.
@MARattigan's contention. Philidor certainly deserves credit. He also called attention to the knight's route (see note at move 13).
I present the checkmate as given in A.D. Philidor, Analysis of the Game of Chess (London, 1777), 244-251.
The same, checked by Stockfish. @MARattigan stated, "Philidor incorporated two cancelling one move inaccuracies for each side." I counted four White inaccuracies plus one in the back-game and two Black inaccuracies plus one in the back-game. Each inaccuracy by White lengthened the distance to mate by one move, while Black's shortened it by the same.
gee it's almost as if the knight made a few 'W's there; that seems important to know:
let's properly start calling it 'philidor's manuever' that should be unambiguous enough for everybody. 😆
...
The same, checked by Stockfish. @MARattigan stated, "Philidor incorporated two cancelling one move inaccuracies for each side." I counted four White inaccuracies plus one in the back-game and two Black inaccuracies plus one in the back-game. Each inaccuracy by White lengthened the distance to mate by one move, while Black's shortened it by the same.
I was really referring to only the process of transferring the king from the wrong corner to mate in the right corner. That is from the position I showed in #32 or equivalently Philidor's position after White's move 7 (the back game). The preceding moves in Philidor's analysis are not a complete analysis of the game and, I think, little quoted.
I've pointed out the inaccuracies in capitals.
Notice the path of the knight is now a wonky "W".
"A beginner should not be allowed to play a game of chess before he can checkmate KBN vs. K"
- Capablanca
do you mind sharing where this quote came from?
@Ziryab
OK - with that clue.