Originally posted by BlueEyedRookJust got Fundamental Chess Endings this morning, and he says that out of 1.7 million games, 283 (62 draws) were B + N + K v K endgames, which is only 0.02%
As an unscientific analysis . . . .
I looked for K,N,B vs. K on my database of 505,551 games.
Only 121 games ended with this scenario.
Intestingly, about 15 of these 121 games ended in a draw.
However, K + p v K, occurs only 3,920 times, which is 0.23%. I believe everybody should know about opposition, for the few occasions it turns up.
End of the day, you learn the theory once, and it should be there for life.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorakomg looks like you have done some excellent research here that I must follow as learning something would be inevitable, I am feeling quite lazy at the moment but feel obligated to look at this in detail in the near future, Well done
I haven’t found any online resource which spells out the ideas behind this mating pattern, so I have chosen to do so myself, after playing my engine in this endgame about 100 times in the past couple of weeks. I haven’t read about this mate anywhere, so I welcome any constructive criticism which betters this tutorial. I may not explained some parts as wel ...[text shortened]... move the enemy king towards a light squared corner.
3) Completing the checkmate.
TBC...
D
Originally posted by RagnorakYou need to know about opposition for more than just K+p v K
However, K + p v K, occurs only 3,920 times, which is 0.23%. I believe everybody should know about opposition, for the few occasions it turns up.
K + x pawns v K + y pawns
K + minor piece + x pawns v K + minor piece + y pawns
and others
e.g. K+N+2p v K+4p
I have just finished a game on this very site with exactly that combination (though I admit I could have won a quicker and easier way). I think it was against BEC but cant remember the game number. Anyway, I learnt the mating technique from a Paul Keres book on endgames, which I highly recommend.
In my opinion it's kind of like learning the subjunctive in Spanish: there are rules you can learn but the best way is to just practise it as much as possible until you just intuitively understand how it works.
By the way, I read a couple of years back about an otb game between two grandmasters that ended in a draw because the one with bishop, knight and king couldn't remember the technique and exceeded that 50-move rule.
I know the question is not directed at me but I could definitely do that now. I have practised that ending so much that it reminded me of when I was a kid and had just discovered the formula for solving the rubix? cube. Once you can do it you start trying to do it against the clock etc. It's good practice. As one person said before, It's unlikely you'll get to do it in real otb chess that much but it helps your understanding of the pieces and how to coordinate them.
Originally posted by scrumpymanjackI learnt it by playing a setpiece game against Schakuhr.
In my opinion it's kind of like learning the subjunctive in Spanish: there are rules you can learn but the best way is to just practise it as much as possible until you just intuitively understand how it works.
I realised that I hadn't a clue what I was doing, and its very hard to figure out without having at least seen the mate being done a few times. So I played Fritz at it a few times to try to figure it out.
Then I played it and played it, until it was second nature. Now, I'm confident I could do it in under 2 minutes.
So yes, playing it is the best way to learn it, but you have to have an idea of the basic pattern to guide you. That's why I wrote this.
D
Let me tell a secret, don't tell anyone - I don't know how to mate with a B+N. Schhh...
My opponent once thought I could and gave up. I won that point instead of only have a remis. Shear luck.
Well, now i know, thanks to Ragnorak. Thank you. My next win with B+N I will dedicate to you!
Originally posted by RagnorakSo, when are you going to begin with a Q+K v R+K Mating Pattern Tutorial? 😵
I learnt it by playing a setpiece game against Schakuhr.
I realised that I hadn't a clue what I was doing, and its very hard to figure out without having at least seen the mate being done a few times. So I played Fritz at it a few times to try to figure it out.
Then I played it and played it, until it was second nature. Now, I'm confident I could do ...[text shortened]... ut you have to have an idea of the basic pattern to guide you. That's why I wrote this.
D
Originally posted by schakuhrI found the one in the books to be helpful on B+N+K v K but i do read a lot of books. However the best one I found was on the fisher website.
so what? I don't care if it's in most endgame books. B+N+K v K is in most endgame books too. I also doubt if the book's explanation is better than Ragnorak's.
ICC had a good one also.