5-piece mate

Correct.


That position is illegal. It could never have happened.

8-piece checkmate. Every knight is needed.



Theoretically, a 9-piece checkmate would be possible (each piece covering exactly one of the 9 squares surrounding the king, including it's current square). However, with the existing pieces in chess, the center square can only be attacked by a piece that attacks at least one of the other 8 squares (in this case Nf6).

With bishops, I think you need at most 5, for the 5 diagonals in the 3x3 square. Don't know about pawns, rooks and queens.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If we all played perfect chess and saw every checkmate, no one will ever get Checkmated. So stop being so asinine. We must assume he overlooked the underpromotion idea that would mate him in this example. These are not grandmasters playing in my example. Okay.

You don't have to be a grandmaster to see that a promoting pawn is dangerous and should be eliminated (just take my word on this).

But you're right - we really shouldn't be considering the quality of the previous play in a composed position. Since we seem to agree on that point now, I'll dismiss your earlier point about Bc6 guarding the pawn. 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
...it does not matter that the c6 bishop is not doing anything at this point, there ar still five pieces there.

Perhaps you missed the word involved in the OP? Does Bc6 seem involved to you, RJ?

If I use your standards, this is a 15-piece checkmate, correct?

Originally posted by tvochess
8-piece checkmate. Every knight is needed.

[fen] 1N2N3/6N1/N4N2/3k4/6N1/N7/2N5/8 [/fen]

Theoretically, a 9-piece checkmate would be possible (each piece covering exactly one of the 9 squares surrounding the king, including it's current square). However, with the existing pieces in chess, the center square can only be attacked by a piece that attacks a ...[text shortened]... ed at most 5, for the 5 diagonals in the 3x3 square. Don't know about pawns, rooks and queens.

Rooks:


Queens:


Pawns:

Originally posted by greenpawn34
That is a four piece mate.

[fen]4kRQ1/3p4/Bp6/4R1B1/8/2P2P1N/1P4PP/3R2K1 b - - 0 1[/fen]
However It is what I would call kill an over kill.
You can remove the g5 Bishop and it would still be mate.

I don't follow this part. If the bishop can be removed, why does it remain a four piece mate and not become a three piece mate?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Perhaps you missed the word involved in the OP? Does Bc6 seem involved to you, RJ?

If I use your standards, this is a 15-piece checkmate, correct?

[fen]5k2/5Q2/5K2/8/8/8/1BBBBBBB/RNBB1BNR w - - 0 1[/fen]

I was going by the standard of the OP and he claimed there were 5 pieces involved in checkmating the king. I was only pointing out that a pawn is not considered a piece. That is why I said I only see 4 pieces. He was including the pawn. In fact if you and greenpawn34 want to change his standard, then he was not even showing a 4-piece checkmate. That was not my purpose.

Originally posted by Varenka
[fen]4kRQ1/3p4/Bp6/4R1B1/8/2P2P1N/1P4PP/3R2K1 b - - 0 1[/fen]

I don't follow this part. If the bishop can be removed, why does it remain a four piece mate and not become a three piece mate?

Well, it is okay if the mighty greeenpawn34 says it is a 4 piece mate. You must believe him.

Originally posted by Varenka
[fen]4kRQ1/3p4/Bp6/4R1B1/8/2P2P1N/1P4PP/3R2K1 b - - 0 1[/fen]

I don't follow this part. If the bishop can be removed, why does it remain a four piece mate and not become a three piece mate?

It's a four-piece mate because the B is guarding d8. No one has specified that there can be no redundant coverage of squares around the K.

In the chess problem world, we'd say that this isn't a model mate because e7 and d8 are attacked by more than one piece. Bg5 is unnecessary, true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was going by the standard of the OP and he claimed there were 5 pieces involved in checkmating the king. I was only pointing out that a pawn is not considered a piece. That is why I said I only see 4 pieces. He was including the pawn. In fact if you and greenpawn34 want to change his standard, then he was not even showing a 4-piece checkmate. That was not my purpose.

Forget about the OP position for a bit. In your position, is Bc6 involved in the mate?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's a four-piece mate because the B is guarding d8. No one has specified that there can be no redundant coverage of squares around the K.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. GP gave an earlier example with "But it does not count. Remove the c7 Rook and it's still mate."...



That's what confused me. By your definition, it does count since the rook is covering squares around the king, albeit redundantly.

Hi V

Sorry about confusion. The Rook was over-killing so to me it's
not a pure 4 piece mate. (matter of opinion or taste.).

Hi RJ.

"Well, it is okay if the mighty greeenpawn34 says it is a 4 piece mate."

I could see you had mis-counted the pieces (a simple error - big deal.)
All you had to do was 'OOPS! instead of getting in deeper and deeper.

I agree with you regarding pieces and pawns.
If someone is a Knight and a pawn up they do not say they are
two pieces up.

There is a grey area about pieces and pawns when invovled in a mate.

What is this? Final position: GP v maria lins Game 7141635


A three piece mate or a two piece and a pawn mate.
I'd go for a three piece mate. (it rolls of the tongue better)
But technically it's a two piece and pawn mate.

RJ why not try: GP's Posting Tip No.173

Never be the first to reply to a new post.
Wait until you have seen 5 ro 6 replies. Pick out the best bits and
cobble them together in one post.
You will get the previous 5 or 6 posters agreeing with you.
Everyone else will this think your are great and clever.

I've been doing it for years.
Soon you too will get the 'mighty greeenpawn34' title. 🙂

does this count? Game 9490398

Originally posted by JAHKOB
does this count? Game 9490398

That, my friend, is a 6-piece mate.
Congratulations 😀

Even better, each of those 6 is essential to the mate, sidestepping the queries above about threatening already threatened squares. Good job 🙂