Talk:Bishop and knight checkmate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] How many moves?
How many moves are required given best play?84.189.119.170 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on the position, but at the worst, the stronger side can checkmate in 33 moves with best play by both sides. I've added that to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Occurrences in actual games?
Is there an example of this in an actual game?84.189.119.170 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of this but I think there was once a game between Kasparov and Anand which, from the final position, would have resulted in this endgame, but which didn't get that far because Anand didn't doubt that Kasparov would know how to win it, and hence resigned before reaching that stage. (unsigned)
[edit] How to?
I hate to bring this up, after the AfD fiascos of last week, but this article does read quite like an instructional guide. The discussion at WP:NOT seeems to have quieted down, but it is not clear to me what the consensus was there. Nonetheless, this article could use some reworking to be more encylopedia-ic. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with you. This reads exactly like what I have in mind for a how-to. I feel there's too much detail given here for an encyclopedia article. I mean, even the reference work quoted (Fundamental Chess Endings) doesn't actually go into most of this - it explains the "W" manoeuvre and gives an example of how to drive the king into the corner that isn't actually explained in detail with words. And if a chess endgame encyclopedia doesn't go into this kind of depth, I don't think we should go overboard either.
- Concrete suggestions:
- Sections 1 and 2 could simply be removed - an encyclopedia article shouldn't be teaching proper piece coordination. This is almost like saying "develop knights before bishops" and "castle early".
- Avoid the terms "active" and "passive defense" in section 3, since it's not established terminology. The lines can still be given but don't need nearly as much verbal explanation.
- The rest of the article seems all right.
- In general, I think we should aim to inform, not to instruct. If we write articles as objective summaries of the existing body of chess knowledge rather than as our version of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual and the like, that seems encyclopedic enough to me. youngvalter 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- This seems like a good first go through.
-
- I believe it would be appropriate to describe that cooperation of the pieces to block off a contiguous (w.r.t. King moves) set of squares (in order to drive the defending King to the edge) is key to the process, would be acceptable, so long as the terminology used was sourced, and there were no diagrams with pretty virtual fences and how-to annotated lines as is now. That could take the place of the first two sections. Unfortunately, I only have the 1969 ed. BCE to work with, so cannot be of that much help. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Two more factoids...
...cited from memory: 1) even some titled players are not able to execute this checkmate and must draw the game, and 2) nearly all chess programs do it without a hitch. Can't find a reference for either, though. GregorB (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- (1) is definitely true. GM Larry Evans once related (in a column in Chess Life and Review, I believe) that at the end of a long simul (that was his excuse, anyway) he was unable to mate in this ending. Once GM Dragoljub Janosevic, as I recall (or was it Kovacevic?), got this ending in a tournament game and proved unable to win it. Former World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik said that one had no business being a GM if one can't mate in this ending. I have to agree. I think (2) is right, also -- but yeah, good luck finding sources for these propositions. Krakatoa (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- (2) Any program with even the four-piece endgame tablebase will have no problem doing it. Programs such as Sargon and early versions of Chessmaster could not do it.
-
- I've never been on either side of this endgame. I doubt that I could beat a computer at it, but I probably could do it against a player weak enough that I'm two pieces ahead. I came close to it in a tournament once. I had B+N+P vs a minor piece. After three or four moves merrily supporting the advance of my pawn, I realized that if he exchanged his piece for my pawn, I'd be in trouble. I changed plans and forced an exchange of pieces. Bubba73 (talk), 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm pretty confident I could win the ending against anyone (as a master, it would be a huge embarrassment if I couldn't). Once you learn a few basic positions cold (the one showing how to drive the king out of the wrong corner, and the ways to lock up your opponent's king with the N+B alone), it's pretty straightforward. I once had the wrong side of the ending in an online game with a 15-second-a-move (as I recall) increment. After 30 moves or so my opponent realized he was getting nowhere and offered the draw. Two knights vs. pawn -- now there's an ending where I wouldn't have a clue. Some Soviet master (Lilienthal?) had the winning side of that ending, with the pawn above the Troitzky line thrice in his career and drew every time. And if I'm recalling the name right, Lilienthal (who has beaten assorted World Champions) is a hell of a lot stronger than I am, probably even today at age 97 or whatever it is. Krakatoa (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- One point missing from the article is something that occurred with me. Knight+Bishop was about to occur, but with only a few moves to the adjournment my opponent knew that he couldn't claim the position as drawn so resigned. Maybe something like this could be covered in the adjournment article, as adjournments are quite a factor in many endings. SunCreator (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was right above about Lilienthal getting 2 N's v. P thrice, at least according to Botvinnik's recollection, which is what I had remembered. See Botvinnik's book Championship Chess, pp. 154-55 (analyzing Smyslov-Lilienthal, USSR Absolute Championship 1941 -- actually Botvinnik says that in this game the pawn was above the Troitzky line, so Lilienthal should have won, and he thinks L. had the same ending twice before, but doesn't expressly say whether the pawn was above the line in the prior endings). I gather Botvinnik and Lilienthal weren't big fans of one another. Botvinnik says what a fish L. is for misplaying the ending despite having it twice before. Botvinnik evidently pulled some strings to set up the "Absolute Championship" after L. and Bondarevsky had co-won, and Botvinnik had embarrassed himself, at the previous USSR Championship. There were no other "Absolute Championships" before or since. Oh, and I was wrong about L.'s age above. He's only 96, and won't be 97 for another five days. Krakatoa (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The beauty of the wiki birth date and age template Andor Lilienthal. Lilienthal is a strong player but I don't really remember reading much about him. SunCreator (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My daughter had the 2N vs P in a tournament when she was seven. (She gets into some strange ones.) I don't know if it was one of the winnable positions, but I was watching and just hoping she would not let the pawn queen. She did exchange a knight for the pawn. Bubba73 (talk), 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's amazing. I've never seen that ending personally. Had your daughter won it, she probably would have been future world-championship material. And yeah, Lilienthal is probably the strongest living player that hardly anyone has heard of: wins over six undisputed world champions! The record is Keres' nine. (Not sure where Lilienthal's win over Alekhine occurred -- his biography says it was in "a serious game," whatever that means.) Krakatoa (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was just hoping that he wouldn't let the pawn promote (and she didn't). In a tournament the same year, she had 2N+R vs. R (no pawns), and exchanged rooks (exchange when ahead), not knowing that 2 Ns can't checkmate. (I'm violating the rules of talk pages, so I need to stop.) Bubba73 (talk), 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's amazing. I've never seen that ending personally. Had your daughter won it, she probably would have been future world-championship material. And yeah, Lilienthal is probably the strongest living player that hardly anyone has heard of: wins over six undisputed world champions! The record is Keres' nine. (Not sure where Lilienthal's win over Alekhine occurred -- his biography says it was in "a serious game," whatever that means.) Krakatoa (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- My daughter had the 2N vs P in a tournament when she was seven. (She gets into some strange ones.) I don't know if it was one of the winnable positions, but I was watching and just hoping she would not let the pawn queen. She did exchange a knight for the pawn. Bubba73 (talk), 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The beauty of the wiki birth date and age template Andor Lilienthal. Lilienthal is a strong player but I don't really remember reading much about him. SunCreator (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was right above about Lilienthal getting 2 N's v. P thrice, at least according to Botvinnik's recollection, which is what I had remembered. See Botvinnik's book Championship Chess, pp. 154-55 (analyzing Smyslov-Lilienthal, USSR Absolute Championship 1941 -- actually Botvinnik says that in this game the pawn was above the Troitzky line, so Lilienthal should have won, and he thinks L. had the same ending twice before, but doesn't expressly say whether the pawn was above the line in the prior endings). I gather Botvinnik and Lilienthal weren't big fans of one another. Botvinnik says what a fish L. is for misplaying the ending despite having it twice before. Botvinnik evidently pulled some strings to set up the "Absolute Championship" after L. and Bondarevsky had co-won, and Botvinnik had embarrassed himself, at the previous USSR Championship. There were no other "Absolute Championships" before or since. Oh, and I was wrong about L.'s age above. He's only 96, and won't be 97 for another five days. Krakatoa (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- One point missing from the article is something that occurred with me. Knight+Bishop was about to occur, but with only a few moves to the adjournment my opponent knew that he couldn't claim the position as drawn so resigned. Maybe something like this could be covered in the adjournment article, as adjournments are quite a factor in many endings. SunCreator (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty confident I could win the ending against anyone (as a master, it would be a huge embarrassment if I couldn't). Once you learn a few basic positions cold (the one showing how to drive the king out of the wrong corner, and the ways to lock up your opponent's king with the N+B alone), it's pretty straightforward. I once had the wrong side of the ending in an online game with a 15-second-a-move (as I recall) increment. After 30 moves or so my opponent realized he was getting nowhere and offered the draw. Two knights vs. pawn -- now there's an ending where I wouldn't have a clue. Some Soviet master (Lilienthal?) had the winning side of that ending, with the pawn above the Troitzky line thrice in his career and drew every time. And if I'm recalling the name right, Lilienthal (who has beaten assorted World Champions) is a hell of a lot stronger than I am, probably even today at age 97 or whatever it is. Krakatoa (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
