Entertainment desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 6[edit]

Bishop and knight mate[edit]

There are two main parts of the Bishop and knight checkmate. The first part is pinning the king to the bishop's opposite color, and the second part is bringing the king from the other color to the bishop's color. I have looked online several places trying to figure out how to do it. For the most part, I get the jist of it. But I can't find something that tells me how to do the first part, because the people assume that I already know how. Anybody know of a good place to look? Legolover26 (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bubba73 is a resident expert on chess. You might give him a try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops mating with knights? What liberal times! —Tamfang (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after all, "Checkmate" is merely a slang way of saying what in formal technical chess terminology would be "You're fucked". Not many people know that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Interestingly the basic word for "to kill" in Spanish, matar is derived directly from the chess term. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Checkmate" is not slang at all, but has been part of standard English since the 14th century, deriving ultimately from Arabic shāh-māt(a, and it means "the king is dead." "Mate" here has nothing to do with sex or mating. John M Baker (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is forcing the king to the side. The defending king should head for one of the two "wrong" corner. Then the second part is forcing the king to one of the two "right" corners. The first part is not as hard as the second part, but it does need to be covered better in the article (I'll see about doing it). The first example from actual games (the section on the "w maneuver") gives a game in which that was done. It really isn't very hard for the K+B+N to force the other king to the side, but I don't know if any procedure has been spelled out. I'll check though (it might take a couple of days). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Could be a little more complete, but added. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my recollection, it's a rather tedious business. Any decent gentleman or lady should resign if they reduced to a lone king vs king bishop and knight. Forcing you to play out the move sequence in the hope you make a blunder and lose a piece or foul up the mating process and have to begin again leaving yourself vulnerable to the fifty move rule is someone you really don't want to play with. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasters have failed to win it! (See the article.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost had it come up in a tournament once. I had a bishop, knight, and one pawn. The opponent had a bishop or knight. We played a few moves like that, then I realized that if he gave up his piece for my pawn, I'd have to try to checkmate with bishop and knight, and I did not have confidence that I could do it. So I made sure to protect my pawn from being exchanged (and won). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]