I took a few lessons from a Master who was formidable at the K+B+N mate. Could mate Fritz in under a minute every time. I can do it now thanks to him (not as quickly, though). Sure I've never had to do it in an actual game but I did get into an ending with pawns on the board where it was a possibility and the very fact I was prepared to allow the trade of the pawns resulted in my opponent resigning.
I'm a wimpy B player and I can do this to Fritz in under a minute. It's simply a matter of practice. It often takes more than 33 moves, however, but I am getting better.
Originally posted by Wulebgr I'm a wimpy B player and I can do this to Fritz in under a minute. It's simply a matter of practice. It often takes more than 33 moves, however, but I am getting better.
I must admit I feel so ashamed as I still haven't worked on Rag's thread yet, I have never been in this position before (quite possibly because I know I would struggle so fight over the last pawn(s) more). I think I will have to fail to mate and draw before I get off my lazy arse and study it.
When I started in chess I used to practice K and rook v. king checkmates. It's just a geometric formula to force the king back to the last rank. But I have always found it incredibly useful in practical games where king and rook endgames abound. I never bothered to learn how to checkmate with a bishop and knight and king. I have never had the opportunity over the board, nor have i seen one in tournament chess. If it came to that, i would just offer a draw.
Originally posted by RahimK Look person, You can't play a game of chess without the king. If you king is missing then you got mate and the game should stop!
Exactly what I say!
How can you mate when you even can't play a game legaly?
If you don't can play without a king you can much less mate anyone.
Originally posted by FabianFnas Exactly what I say!
How can you mate when you even can't play a game legaly?
If you don't can play without a king you can much less mate anyone.
(-;
He said can you mate a lone king with a rook. It is obvious that the rook side still has a king.
In a game against Hans (Chessmaster X personality), I reached the following position:
Of course it is easiest to promote the pawn, but it seemed a good opportunity to practice, so the game concluded 76.Kc7 Kf6 77.Kd7 Kg6 78.Ke6 Kh5 79.Kf5 Kh4 80.Nc2 Kh5 81.Ne3 Kh6 82.Kf6 Kh7 83.Ng4 Kg8 84.Kg6 Kh8 85.Bf8 Kg8 86.Bh6 Kh8 87.Bg7+ Kg8 88.Nf6# 1–0
I was playing against a friend OTB and I had a knight, a bishop and a king and he only had a king. I think I was playing flawlessly except the fact that I took him to the wrong corner, i.e. colour of the corner was not that of my bishop! We used to play with the rule that if one side has only a king left, only 16 moves are given to the opponent to checkmate him otherwise its a draw..I know this rule is stupid and doesn't exist..but thus the game ended in a draw.
Originally posted by trevor33 if the black king is in the middle of the board is it possible to avoid being mated if white has just a rook left?
You can checkmate someone everytime if you have rook and king vs king. about 20 moves it takes if opponents king is in center of board. its very easy really. just takes a few moves thats all. David
Originally posted by zebano I know Kevin Bachler (IM) could do it (NBK) in a blitz game (no delay) so I have no idea where you are getting the idea that GMs call it a draw.
Here is me doing it in a practice game with Schakur:
Game 1909828
What has this game got to do with the thread "checkmate with just the rook and king" ?
Originally posted by Essex 3 What has this game got to do with the thread "checkmate with just the rook and king" ?
Try reading the whole thread (not just the title). Also, posting the same thing twice is ... (I put the ellipsis there just to annoy XanthosNZ) less than useful and at best annoyin.
The thread clearly evolved into a discussion of the minimum material required for mate.
31 Jan '06 13:15
checkmate with just the rook and king
Back to Top