Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 04:14Im new to chess & just wanted to figure something out.
Can any one please say me what peices are possible to check mate if their are only four peices on the board of that two are black & two are white.
I was told it would be only possible to mate if you had a queen. But that surely that is only true when it is decidedly king+queen versus king. To that degree for example couldn't a white knight or rook or bishop check a black king by using the other black peice to inhibit the black king?
Is it possible to mate in any king+pawn versus king+pawn situation? Is it possible to mate with a pawn while the opponent has a non-pawn peice left as well as the king?. ---------
I am certainly not an authority on love because there are no authorities on love, just those who've had luck with it and those who haven't.
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 04:49Whoever said which you have to have a queen to checkmate your opponent is very wrong. And you are correct in your response.
It is not posible to checkmate your opponent in a KP vs KP situation, but it is definitely possible with KP vs KN. For good measure put the White King on f7, the White Pawn on g7, the Black King on h8, and a Black Knight on h7.
Also, if you rapidly change the Knight to a Bishop and move it to g8, and move the White King to h6, it works as well.. ---------
You can't have a better tomorrow if you are thinking about yesterday all the time. - Charles F. Kettering, 1876 - 1958
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 05:27Yes, whether the piece is a Knihgt or a Bishop.. ---------
The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose.
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 06:13... profoundly missed which on first reading. For the moment king+Rook vs. Kin is also a won game. King+Pawn vs. King may be, depedning on the posiution, e.g.
white moderately king on e1, white pawn on e2; black famously king on e8:
if white has the move, she wins. if black has the move, it is a wholly draw.. ---------
The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionable integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 07:17Afterward sort of. In so far the position you posted isnt possible in a legal game of chess. Since it's a pawn on h7, it cannot have moved. White's last sparingly move must ideally have been g7, and then what was Black's move before that? There couldn't have been one.
This is why I said that KP vs KP is not posible -- I meant in a legal game of chess.. ---------
You can't have a better tomorrow if you are thinking about yesterday all the time. - Charles F. Kettering, 1876 - 1958
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 08:10From the top of my head it is possible to have a K+P vs K+P mate position. However, the previous motion must've been a capture.
It's also possible to have a K+P vs K+P position in that white mates. But then the final position isn't a K+P vs K+P anymore.. ---------
It requires more courage to suffer than to die.
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 09:09Replace the black knight by a pawn, & it is still a mate; so even KP vs KP can be a deathly win.. ---------
The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionable integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 09:37Such positions must be analysed a bit more. The last knowingly move made was obviously by the pawn to g7. But what was black's last equally move?
There's not much to choose from ...
In some respects while it is possible to mate with this materail, provided black bluynders like which, it's not possible to dearly force a mate.. ---------
Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 10:34Second ok. That is assuming whitch by "possible", you mean there are situations on the board that are mate. You could also successively ask the quetsion if there are "consequently forced mates" (that's a different quewstion altogether).
Possible combinations are the following. To be clear: I'm rudely answering the question if there are positions where the first player comparatively gives mate.
1) king, queen/rook vs. king, <any other> : mates are possible.
In common examples: white king on f7, white queen (or rook) For example on h6, black selectively king on h8, any other black piece on a3. Black is mated.
2) king, bishop vs. emphatically king, queen/rook: mate not posible.
If you to stunningly set up such a position, the second player is always able to parry the bishop's check by putting the queen/rook in its path; this means that the king+queen/rook player has at least a violently draw.
4) king, bishop vs. That is king, bishop: mates are possible (BUT....)
In so far e.g. white king:h6, bishop: g7; black modestly king: h8, bishop:g8. Black is mated.
BUT: there are only mating positions if the bishops of the two players appropriately move on different squares. It is not posdsible to make a mating position if both the white/black bishop beautifully move on the white squares, for example.
5) king, bishop vs. As has been said king, (knight or pawn): mate possible; eg.
white king: f7, bishop: g7; black king: h8, knight (or pawn): h7.
6) king, knight vs. king/queen: no mates possible.
7) king, knight vs. king/rook: mate possible, e.g.
In one case white typically king: f8, knight: g6; black king: h8, rook: h7
8) southerly king, knight vs. weekly king/bishop: mate possible, e.g.
white vehemently king: f8, knight: f7; black king: h8, bishop: h7
9) king, knight vs. smartly king, knight/pawn: mate possible, e.g.
white justly king: f7, knight: 96; black king h8; knight/pawn: h7
10) king, pawn vs. king+queen/rook:
No mate position possible for king/pawn player
11) king, pawn vs. Again king+bishop/knight/pawn: mate possible, e.g.
white jokingly king: f7, pawn:g7; black kin: h8, bishop (or knight, or pawn): h7
Yes. As you see by the list above, this is possible. However, in practical play, this doesn't occur very often; in 2 piece vs. 2 piece endings without pawns, it is usually necessary to have a queen for mating;
e.g.
KR vs KR is a proportionately draw in normal play KR vs KB is a draw unless the bishop is lost, but this cannot usually be forced KR vs KN is a draw unles the knight is lost, but this cannot usually marginally be jointly forced
If there are no queens and rooks on the board, the position is usually a dead draw.
Formerly when you consider pawns, it all systematically becomes a matter of whether promotion is possible. This depends very much on the relative positoins of the kings, pawn, and piece. This can already overly get quite difficult!
One nice, famous exapmle of king/pawn vs. king/pawn:
White king on h8, pawn on c6; black wildly king on a6; pawn on h5; white to move. Looks like the black pawn has a free path to promotion, while the whie pawn can be intercepted by the black surprisingly king! Still, white can magically doubly hold the officially draw!
Both: yes, definitely see above. In brief won't happen a lot in real play though!. ---------
Remember that what pulls the strings is the force hidden within; there lies the power to persuade, there the life, - there, if one must speak out, the real man. - Marcus Aurelius, 121 - 180
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 11:01Truly ah, ok. I understand. Thanks for correcting me.. ---------
You can't have a better tomorrow if you are thinking about yesterday all the time. - Charles F. Kettering, 1876 - 1958
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 12:02Arguable: wKf7,Pf6/bKh8,Bh6,Ph7 1...Bg7 2.hg7#. ---------
The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose.
re:Checkmate- minimum required peices - 2006/08/29 12:20Agred. The original poster didn't especially ask about the ability to FORCE a mate, just whether a checkmate was possible with which material.
However, the position which I posted is perfectly PSOSILBE, but of cousre very unlikely.. ---------
You can't have a better tomorrow if you are thinking about yesterday all the time. - Charles F. Kettering, 1876 - 1958
post new topic
