Talk:Bishop and knight checkmate

message: How many moves are required given best play?84.189.119.170 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the position, but at the worst, the stronger side can checkmate in 33 moves with best play by both sides.  I've added that to the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many moves? 

message: It appears to me that the example labeled "An Alternate Checkmate" could not possibly be attained through actual play, since the Knight must make its attack against the losing king in from a stalemated position (obviously not a legal play.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.98.44 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. SunCreator (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I replaced it with one that can be forced (with a reference).  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, but the top diagram that I added here on the talk page has the same issue. SunCreator (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll fix it.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apology. Can see how it is forceble after all. SunCreator (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the new position is referenced and it is the actual final position in the "W maneuver" section.  An improvement.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Faulty Example 

message: The claim that checkmate can only be accomplished in the same color corner as the bishop is incorrect. With the White King on c1, mate can be achieved with Bc2, Kc3, and Nb3...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.196.209 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkmate can only be forced near the corner that the bishop controls.  It can't be forced in the other corners - the defender would have to blunder into it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  For instance, in that position, Black's last move was ...Nb3#.  But the white king had to move to c1 from b1, b2, or d1.  If he was on d1 he should have moved to e1 instead of c1, etc.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "W" maneuver section 

message: Here is the current Wiki text:
:A method for checkmate when the lone king is in the corner of the opposite colour from the bishop, using the "W" method, was given by Philidor in his famous 1749 treatise, Analyse du jeu des Échecs.Philidor's treatise 
There are at least 3 problems here:  
# The 1749 treatise has only 1 endgame in it (R+B vs R).  
# The reference here takes you to an updated edition dated 1803(?).
# The actual title to the 1749 treatise is:  "L'Analyze des Echecs"
https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Fran%C3%A7ois_Danican_Philidor_L_analyze_des_echecs?id=tJxHAAAAYAAJ&hl=en
The updated and expanded 1777 English edition (also in the 1777 French edition),  "Analysis of the Game of Chess"
https://books.google.com/books?id=OWUQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=analysis+of+the+game+of+chess&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb8uf6-bvMAhVKMSYKHQe6DqUQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=analysis%20of%20the%20game%20of%20chess&f=false
on p 244 describes the checkmate method with B+N.
TommyWP (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original 1749 Philidor treatise does NOT cover B+N endgame 

message: In the Grandmasters_failing_to_mate section, the assertion that "The superior side had no idea how to win" isn't supported by the citation. While the game record on chessgames is clear evidence that Epishin failed to win the game, saying he "had no idea how to win" seems a bit harsh, given that at some points he was in the correct direction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcaetano (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have changed it.  Clearly he had an idea of how to win, he just didn't know the technique.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: This isn't a checkmate since the king isn't in check.
Seems like the knight was most likely intended to be at A7?
Unless this was supposed to depict a starting state, in which case it's very out of character with the other diagrams and should probably be labelled more clearly.
Hope that makes sense, sorry if I've missed something obvious.
SpectatorRah (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: white checkmates in 33 moves from that position, which is one of the worst starting positions for White.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in diagram F at the top of the page? 

message: I believe the X’s in diagrams T, U, V are incorrect, and the boundaries of the triangles are in error. I’d fix them myself, but I came here trying to learn this endgame, and having never played it correctly, am not really qualified to edit it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPellessier (talk • contribs) 
: I think I got those from one of the references, I'll check.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked the source (Pandolfini), and they are correct.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams T, U, V are incorrect? 

message: The biggest issue I took with your edit was that Soltis' position cannot be binarily classified, as he gives reasons both for and against learning it, ultimately concluding that learning it is good overall.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this clarification. In my editing I divided Soltis's arguments (not his position) between the two subsections I'd created. However, lest there be any confusion about his position to someone reading the article quickly, I've reworded the Importance section just now to keep his two arguments in the same sentence. If you see any other issues, I'd be grateful if you didn't please revert the whole section again before we have a chance to discuss it. Mebden (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance section 

message: Diagram E's caption says that checkmate can be forced. However, that checkmate is in the "wrong color" corner. So, presumably the caption is wrong? 79.176.188.163 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in diagram E? 

message: I want to discuss referencing the three phases from Müller & Lamprecht:
# Driving the opposing king to the edge of the board.
# Forcing the king out of the "wrong" corner to the "right" corner, if necessary.
# Delivering the checkmate.
The three phases are relevant only for reaching the starting position or an intermediate position for the W manoeuvre. From the example lines in the book, it is clear that the three phases only relate to the W manoeuvre, but there is no mention in the text.
For Delétang's triangle method, these phases are irrelevant, as the starting position is different.
As such, I deem the reference from Müller & Lamprecht, not a universal approach. But mentioning here sort of promotes it to the universal approach, which I deem incorrect. So one should bring the W manoeuvre onto the table.
I would also like to discuss the following points. What are your opinions on these points? I consider these facts from a chess-playing perspective but wondering about other opinions:
No systematic pattern exists for driving the king to the edge of the board and then reaching the initial or intermediate position of the W manoeuvre. So this part is often more complicated than the W manoeuvre itself.
Also, proposing the best defence for the opponent to go to the wrong corner must be clarified. Once the king is in the wrong corner, one can easily reach the starting position of the W manoeuvre, whereas it is otherwise, the opponent king not being in the wrong corner, often much more complex. Dlbbld (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method - three phases 

message: The phrase “two moves deep” appears twice in the current version of the article, but is not defined or clarified in any way. One is in the lead section, while the other appears in the description of Diagram E, which shows a checkmating position. 
Frankly, I have no idea what the phrase means here and comes off as jargon. It either it needs an explanatory note, or should be removed. Jedzz (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that White can checkmate in two moves from certain positions, but it needs more context and an example of the position.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Two moves deep”