Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/07/27 11:41Further to this.
It is evident that White cannot afford to lose a Bishop.
White (the stronger) wins, if at all, by taking the Knight and then mating with the two Bishops.
Black draws (if not by the 50 move rule) by forking King and a Bishop with the Kt. White, if he is in a forkable position, must watch that the Kt cannot land on a forking square. The tricky fellow can do this sometimes by attacking the other bishop, which has to move away, and then(!) forking the other Bishop and King. Even worse, there was a position in my latest efforts at the theory where the King was checked from a non forking square, and then the knight was able to perform the maneouvre mentioned in the previous sentence.
The danger for Black lies in pins and skewers of Kt and King.
White must force the Black king from the centre to the side of the board to trap the knight, who eventually may be forced away from the king's defensive arms and caught at the edge of the board by one Bishop blocking escape squares and the Bishop or king coming in for the coup de grace.
All this is very tricky, but I am determined to learn this quite useless mate (because how it could arise is hardly feasible, all pawns and other pieces having to be off) as an exercise.
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/08/08 10:12I am surprised that not anybody has a word to say about this subject. Is it too hard? Or is the theory useless?
I must say it is difficult, and I have not developed a method, but I think the analysis is the problem.
With King, Bishop and Knight versus lone King, the theory is not easy, but the method is describable, and once the King has been driven to the side of the board, a few short variations can describe the final mating process.
So, is K,B,B vs K,N too hard for you all, even the top experts?
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/08/09 16:10well I have to admit that I rarely came accross that type of position whether OTB or on the net...
I guess top players assume that eventually they or their opponent would have resigned by now...
And there is also the small matter of the 50 moves rules....
I have to admit I never spent time tryiong to over analyse this type of scenario ( my bad )
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/08/10 16:04I have never seen it in real play.
All majors and pawns off and only minors on is not a very realistic scenario.
The constant threat of knight forks keeps the weaker side in the game.
But my chess program wins usually by a series of zugswangs incorporating two or three waiting moves which give the stronger side a chance of forcing the opponent to take his king away from the centre, and then to have the king unable to stave off the bishops from hemming in the knight.
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/09/03 03:53Thank you very much indeed. I am very grateful.
Do you know if this applet is reliable to give best play for both sides?
Some of the positions I feed in have over 70 moves as the answer to how long to mate.
I feel that if I learnt the technique needed to win in such an improbable situation, I would learn a lot about Bishops and Knights, and how the King cooperates on each side.
You see, the general rule that I was taught for assessing a position was that all other things being equal, that to win, a minor piece advantage without pawns on the board is a draw. Not so in my scenario.
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/09/03 19:39mistermac wrote: Thank you very much indeed. I am very grateful.
Do you know if this applet is reliable to give best play for both sides?
Some of the positions I feed in have over 70 moves as the answer to how long to mate.
......
Yes,
Tablebases are generated backwards, starting from the checkmated position. In addition to the outcome they contain the number of moves it takes (if it is not a draw).
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/09/19 02:36I don't think it makes it by analysis. It should have some algorythms behind. The endgame was considered a draw, before computers became strong (there is even a study by Troitsky on the theme). About 19 years ago I received a chess computing bulletin in England. The article about your theme was replete with new concepts and formulae, a whole theory. It seems that the win requires a perfect play (most moves, if not all, are unique). I wanted to decipher it, but I couldn't (please note that I have a math degree and worked as system analyst). Given time, one can of course learn the procedure, but I don't think it's worth that time. It's a lot more difficult than 2N against (blocked) enemy pawn, which occures once in a lifetime.
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2007/09/21 04:52Glad to think Troitsky was interested, so I am in good company. Thank you for your reply. I have a similar background to you.
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2009/12/26 07:18To learn 2 bishops vs. knight, I think it is better to try learning the winning positions of knight + bishop vs. knight first, because they seem a little less complicated. After learning how to tell the difference between a draw and a win in knight + bishop vs. knight, then I think it would be easier to learn 2 bishops vs. knight.
Re:Mate with 2 Bishops (not same colour) vs Knight - 2009/12/26 08:53Yes, I must brush up on the Bishop + Knight vs Knight positions. I am sure it would be of great assistance to my seeking after the 2 bishops (opp colours) v lone knight solution.
post new topic
