30 Jun 04
I just set up pieces this way: white king at b8, black king at a6, black knight at e6, and other black knight at c6 giving check. White could get out of check by Ka8, whereupon ... Nc7 is checkmate. So yes, mate can be achieved. Whether it always requires a blunder by the side which just has a king is an interesting question that somebody here will know the answer to.
30 Jun 04
I have recently played an otb game where I was left with two knights and a king, and my opponent had a lone king. I almost posted this same question, because I could'nt achieve checkmate, without first allowing him to move into a stale mate. Please if any of you higher rated players can solve this, I'd just love to know the answer.
30 Jun 04
Originally posted by NyxieThose who said that it cannot be forced are correct. The stronger side will always come up one move short because of the stalemate. Mate can still be achieved with help from the opponenet, but it requires the opponenet to play very, very badly over a number of moves.
I have recently played an otb game where I was left with two knights and a king, and my opponent had a lone king. I almost posted this same question, because I could'nt achieve checkmate, without first allowing him to move into a stale mate. Please if any of you higher rated players can solve this, I'd just love to know the answer.
30 Jun 04
Originally posted by dinc168"According to my Chess Theory and Practice" by W. Ritson Morry & W. Melville Mitchell, p. 55, "Two knights cannot mate alone because when the king is stalemated in a corner the other knight has no time to mate." When the king has a pawn with it, a mate is possible in some circumstances.
can you achieve checkmate when white has only his king and black has 2 knights.
30 Jun 04
Originally posted by Paul DiracNo, I mean that it is impossible for two knights and a king to force checkmate against a lone king, period. The book does say you can only do it with three knights (anybody ever see one side with three knights in a game?).
No1marauder, when you say "two knights alone" I presume you mean without help from the king belonging to the same player the knights belong to.
30 Jun 04
Originally posted by Paul DiracI just looked at your example posted earlier and I can't find a flaw in your example. So I guess my last post is in error and if somebody is bad enough you can force checkmate with two knights and a king.
No1marauder, when you say "two knights alone" I presume you mean without help from the king belonging to the same player the knights belong to.
30 Jun 04
Originally posted by no1marauderAt one point, I seriously considered trying this in a game here. I had something like a rook and 3 pawns to my opponent's one pawn, and he was stubbornly refusing to resign. So I was planning on sacing the rook for the pawn and promoting my three to knights just to be insulting + make my own little contribution to endgame theory. I eventually wimped out. :-)
No, I mean that it is impossible for two knights and a king to force checkmate against a lone king, period. The book does say you can only do it with three knights (anybody ever see one side with three knights in a game?).
uh... other than that, the only realistic in-game situation I can possibly think of when one would end up with 3 knights if if one is promoting, and can't promote to a rook or queen because of stalemate (would require a lot of pawns probably) and don't want to promote to a bishop because you already have one of that color. And then proceed to blunder all non-knight material horribly.