Skip to main content
edited tags
Link
Rewan Demontay
  • 17.8k
  • 4
  • 69
  • 116
edited tags
Link
Rewan Demontay
  • 17.8k
  • 4
  • 69
  • 116
Tweeted twitter.com/StackChess/status/828303977041231872
Clearing up several points of confusion about the question.
Source Link
eyeballfrog
  • 946
  • 6
  • 15

InI was looking at minimal combinations of material needed to force checkmate (K+R, Q+B, R+N+N, etc). You end up with a sort of threshold of how much material is needed, and that sort of assigns a strength to the king. But that made me wonder if K+K is sufficient material to force checkmate. Obviously this is normally impossible, but in the hypothetical endgame where white has two kings and black has one (and make the obvious loosenings of the restrictions on moving into check), could the two kings force checkmate against the one king?

Alternatively, one could think of it as white having a king and a nonstandardfairy chess piece that moves exactly like a king. Is this enough material to force checkmate?

In the hypothetical endgame where white has two kings and black has one, could the two kings force checkmate against the one king?

Alternatively, one could think of it as white having a king and a nonstandard chess piece that moves exactly like a king.

I was looking at minimal combinations of material needed to force checkmate (K+R, Q+B, R+N+N, etc). You end up with a sort of threshold of how much material is needed, and that sort of assigns a strength to the king. But that made me wonder if K+K is sufficient material to force checkmate. Obviously this is normally impossible, but in the hypothetical endgame where white has two kings and black has one (and make the obvious loosenings of the restrictions on moving into check), could the two kings force checkmate against the one king?

Alternatively, one could think of it as white having a king and a fairy chess piece that moves exactly like a king. Is this enough material to force checkmate?

Post Reopened by bof, Glorfindel, javatutorial, Andrew
Post Closed as "Not suitable for this site" by Brian Towers, Tony Ennis, SmallChess, user1108, GloriaVictis
Source Link
eyeballfrog
  • 946
  • 6
  • 15
Loading