Jesus de la Villa mentioned one case in his book on endgames: lichess.org/hu0ycUZU#0
Promoting to knight only saved him for little while. Interesting technique: isolate the knight.
Nobody has been checkmate by a minor piece because they can't cover enough squares... The knight is a simple hopper, not a ranging piece.
If Knight vs. Rook, the closest the side with the knight can get to is a draw, if the rook is accidentally lost. Because a king cannot check another, you must use the knight to check the king, and the king to cover the escape squares on both sides. Normally a king holds the other against the back rank, and the whole back rank is attacked by a major piece. This is how most major piece mates work.
Two bishops cover each other's weaknesses, forming a border the king cannot slide through. With the king helping, you can mate pretty quickly if you chase the king into a corner, and check him with a bishop.
You'll find that a two minor piece mate works the same way as a major piece mate. Even two knights can checkmate a king, and are faster when there is an enemy rook blocking the king's escape square (when finding a mate I figured out a way to make the rook a disadvantage for the king).
So, nobody has checkmated with a single knight and king against a single rook and king.
But oftentimes the rook and king can mate a king and knight.
If Knight vs. Rook, the closest the side with the knight can get to is a draw, if the rook is accidentally lost. Because a king cannot check another, you must use the knight to check the king, and the king to cover the escape squares on both sides. Normally a king holds the other against the back rank, and the whole back rank is attacked by a major piece. This is how most major piece mates work.
Two bishops cover each other's weaknesses, forming a border the king cannot slide through. With the king helping, you can mate pretty quickly if you chase the king into a corner, and check him with a bishop.
You'll find that a two minor piece mate works the same way as a major piece mate. Even two knights can checkmate a king, and are faster when there is an enemy rook blocking the king's escape square (when finding a mate I figured out a way to make the rook a disadvantage for the king).
So, nobody has checkmated with a single knight and king against a single rook and king.
But oftentimes the rook and king can mate a king and knight.
@doctorputz (#12)
Yep, the point of promoting to knight was likely just to save the checkmate (back rank mate), and make a few spite checks before the inevitable loss came.
Yep, the point of promoting to knight was likely just to save the checkmate (back rank mate), and make a few spite checks before the inevitable loss came.
Normally, it is a valid rescue method, often only move to save the day. Not only spite-checking. But something went terribly wrong in the above game, as far as I remember he was lead astray.
@InnateAluminum :
In cases like king+knight vs. king+rook FIDE rules don``´'t say anything about how the chances are in a practical game. The only question is if checkmate is possible by a regular sequence of moves. And yes it is: lichess.org/study/ZIcjFWI8
The player with the rook will only lose in very rare cases. Most likely in blitz games without increment, when everyone agreed to play a game where time is a much more important factor than in a tournament game.
In cases like king+knight vs. king+rook FIDE rules don``´'t say anything about how the chances are in a practical game. The only question is if checkmate is possible by a regular sequence of moves. And yes it is: lichess.org/study/ZIcjFWI8
The player with the rook will only lose in very rare cases. Most likely in blitz games without increment, when everyone agreed to play a game where time is a much more important factor than in a tournament game.
The chances that a lone knight wins against x,y,z are comparable to a white pawn a2 winning against the whole black army.
Tell me why one is generally accepted and the other not!?
Tell me why one is generally accepted and the other not!?
"If Knight vs. Rook, the closest the side with the knight can get to is a draw"
Technically not true. White king on a1, White rook on b1, Black king on a3, black knight on c2.
Technically not true. White king on a1, White rook on b1, Black king on a3, black knight on c2.
@Karpfenkopf (#16)
I don't know what point you're trying to make, but thanks for showing me the checkmate (very rare, almost impossible to play to even against beginners).
@Paradise_Pete (#18)
Yep, thanks for that. Interesting mates, these do work like back rank mates.
I don't know what point you're trying to make, but thanks for showing me the checkmate (very rare, almost impossible to play to even against beginners).
@Paradise_Pete (#18)
Yep, thanks for that. Interesting mates, these do work like back rank mates.
@Sarg0n (#17)
> The chances that a lone knight wins against x,y,z are comparable to a white pawn a2 winning against the whole black army.
What are x, y, and z, and what point are you trying to make?
> The chances that a lone knight wins against x,y,z are comparable to a white pawn a2 winning against the whole black army.
What are x, y, and z, and what point are you trying to make?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.