18 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by BowmannNot quite.
April Fool, perhaps?
It was tried this year too:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2303
"Okay, let's leave it at that – with apologies to the hundreds who are not being quoted here. Actually most will be relieved, because, as it turns out:
The "Draws are banned" story was perfectly true! Every last word of it.
At the Super-GM tournament in Sofia the participants will not be allowed
to offer draws, only the arbiter can do that.
So that article was not an April Fool's prank."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2303
18 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think its possible..
The reason two Knights cannot checkmate might be that the enemy King cannot move into check. I'm guessing the proposal is that stalemate be removed.
http://www.anadune.com/chess/endgames/knn_k.html
I'm still trying to find an example of how they got to that point though.
18 Apr 05
Originally posted by MIODudeIts only possible if the defending side misplays it.
I think its possible..
http://www.anadune.com/chess/endgames/knn_k.html
I'm still trying to find an example of how they got to that point though.
There is no forced mate with 2 knights.
Now, if the defending side has a pawn, it is sometimes possible, because there's no stalemate option.
18 Apr 05
Originally posted by marinakatombThis reminds me of the bare King rule that existed in the old rules of chess. With Queens limited to one diagonal square per move, and Bishops to a leaping, two-diagonal square move, there were not nearly as many wins by checkmate.
taking all your opponents pieces (pawns included)??
I read that in the 70s FIDE considered changing the rules to try and avoid so many draws at GM level.
What are your thoughts? Let's have a vote.
1. Yes you should be able to win this way.
2. No you shouldn't.
😀
19 Apr 05
In Stanley Random (SR) Chess it is possible for one side to force a win with just the two Kings on the board. This of course applies only to certain local variations and is merely a consequence of the modernising of the rules in the late eighteenth century.
Under European rules, however, the King vs. King endgame is more often than not a theoretical draw.
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by BowmannOne point that is perhaps missed is that K + N vs. K would be a win for the side with a Knight under the old rules, even though the Knight's move has not changed.
In Stanley Random (SR) Chess it is possible for one side to force a win with just the two Kings on the board. This of course applies only to certain local variations and is merely a consequence of the modernising of the rules in the late eighteenth century.
Under European rules, however, the King vs. King endgame is more often than not a theoretical draw.
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by MIODudeYeah, it a bogus position. Maybe one a low rated player might move into... but if we are going to consider stupid moves by opponents then the position is WORTHLESS! 😛
I think its possible..
http://www.anadune.com/chess/endgames/knn_k.html
I'm still trying to find an example of how they got to that point though.
19 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell two knights can actually checkmate with a little help from your opponent:
The reason two Knights cannot checkmate might be that the enemy King cannot move into check. I'm guessing the proposal is that stalemate be removed.
1.Nf6+ Kh8!! 2.Nf7 #
EDITED: And to think I missed an entire page before posting this 🙂
19 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DfthdYou've got my sympathy there. As the above post shows checkmate is possible with two knights and no other material, but only if the king is already in a mating net. It can't be forced from an arbitrary position.
I had one guy bringing me to move 120+ because he said he could checkmate me using 2 knights and I said he couldn't and he wanted to prove that he could and he didn't.