How many players know how to checkmate with knight and bishop? I have a bit of fear that this position might come up in a real game and I'll have to take a draw in 100% winning position (that would be especially embarrassing in a tournament OTB game). On the other hand techniques of mating with K&B look fairly complicated for a "basic" endgame and I feel that even if I learn them I'll forget everything in a week. So I'm wondering, how many chess players actually know how to do it? And at what level of strength people learn this stuff? Any thoughts?
chessable has this B+N endgame technique for practice
www.chessable.com/endgame-book/essential-endings-mating-with-bn/2033/
www.chessable.com/endgame-book/essential-endings-mating-with-bn/2033/
One thing that is needed, is that you need to drive the lone king into a corner that is the same color as the bishop . Been playing along time and have never had to do it...I don't want to do it. :}
It doesn't take long to learn. GM Akobian shows you how in this video. He says he has only had the ending once in his life. It's probably a waste of time unless you're a tournament player but it's fun to see how the knight and bishop work.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OGAiz5p_L4&t=192s
If I ever have a King and my opponent has a N and B then I am not resigning. I will make my opponent work for his win.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OGAiz5p_L4&t=192s
If I ever have a King and my opponent has a N and B then I am not resigning. I will make my opponent work for his win.
I've only seen it come up once in my 1000 classical games, and 3000 blitz games. I forget what time control it was, but I also had 1 pawn so it doesn't count.
Yeah I learned it two years ago and took 2 hours time. I learned both methods (the W method and large/medium/small triangle method).
Then a year later I tried doing it and couldn't do it anymore. So I went back to training and it took way more than 2 hours to be able to reteach myself it (the W method).
I'm still not sure which method I think is easier, but pick whichever one that requires least memory, variations, possibilities. And 1000 level should learn it if only for instruction on piece coordination and controlling key squares.
Yeah I learned it two years ago and took 2 hours time. I learned both methods (the W method and large/medium/small triangle method).
Then a year later I tried doing it and couldn't do it anymore. So I went back to training and it took way more than 2 hours to be able to reteach myself it (the W method).
I'm still not sure which method I think is easier, but pick whichever one that requires least memory, variations, possibilities. And 1000 level should learn it if only for instruction on piece coordination and controlling key squares.
It is basic knowledge and every chess player should be able to checkmate with N+B. It happens rarely over the board, but in blitz it is often useful to aim for to save a lost position. If you have 2 pieces versus B+N+ 2 pawns, you sacrifice your pieces for the pawns and let him checkmate you before his flag falls.
Apart from the direct practical use it also teaches piece coordination and the value difference between bishop and knight. Every beginner should learn this.
Apart from the direct practical use it also teaches piece coordination and the value difference between bishop and knight. Every beginner should learn this.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've always liked the Delatang triangle method, but mostly for aesthetic reasons. I find the geometry more appealing than the usual method with the knight W.
It is a bit slower in terms of moves required, though, so that's a bit of a drawback.
Of course, there's a third approach, a non-method, which is to play the fastest tablebase mate. That usually ends up looking like neither of these, but good luck remembering it :)
It is a bit slower in terms of moves required, though, so that's a bit of a drawback.
Of course, there's a third approach, a non-method, which is to play the fastest tablebase mate. That usually ends up looking like neither of these, but good luck remembering it :)
I've had the endgame it least 4 times OTB in my life. (twice each side)
I lost both games where my opponents had BN and unfortunately only won one of mine as I barely got flagged shortly before mate.
Also with the W manover it's not very difficult.
I think the reason some people don't get that endgame very often is because they resign too early (e.g. when down a piece for nothing) instead of playing for such outs. (or on the other side try to avoid it as they're not sure how to win)
I lost both games where my opponents had BN and unfortunately only won one of mine as I barely got flagged shortly before mate.
Also with the W manover it's not very difficult.
I think the reason some people don't get that endgame very often is because they resign too early (e.g. when down a piece for nothing) instead of playing for such outs. (or on the other side try to avoid it as they're not sure how to win)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.