Unless your opponents have all the pieces except some pawns and no knights

Unless you're Hikaru and are bullying your opponent with a 7 knight checkmate because he refuses to resign

Lmaooooo

Unless you're Hikaru doing the disrespect speedrun

@@siraaron8650 Yes. Hikaru playing against 700elo bullying them sounds about a monday. Hell for sure make a video series on where he goes boxing against 5year olds wearing some million dollar disguise and knocks em out in a row.

OMG, plot twist of all times.

Lmfaooooo

It's not always about king, bishop man.

I had 6 games with 3 knights against a bishop. Now i know how i can win it! Thx!!

That's not stockfish, it's the tablebase.

@@maxscherzer9521 😑

@@maxscherzer9521 Even a 20 Depth Stockfish plays the exact same moves as the tablebase in that position. Stockfish is almost as perfect as a table base in almost all positions. There are very few exceptions to this.

@@happygood18 Does'nt stockfish use tablebase anyway?

@@quarksandaces2398 You'd think Stockfish would revert to a tablebase whenever there are seven or fewer pieces on the board. However, if it did that, the response should be instantaneous, and there would be no need to show the level of analysis. So what's the engine doing exactly?

Thats what I noticed too

After it got close to taking the bishop. That level is beyond human comprehension.

This is just like coitus interruptus. I would like to see the whole sequence all the way to the end. Would you rather play: (1) *MOST* of a game of chess? ... or... (2) *ALL* of a game of chess?????

@@simonmultiverse6349 The point is if you can avoid the opponent trading their B for one of your N's you should win because KNN vs K is a draw except for trivial positions.

2 rooks I can do within 2 moves.

@@reubenmanzo2054 try to put a rooks in bad position then

@@reubenmanzo2054 That makes zero sense unless you intentionally set it up to be within two moves. Which isn't what the OP is talking about, they're naming maximum possible moves needed for an effective forced mate in each scenario

2 rooks are too over powered

3 moves, more of

KBB vs KN is actually possible for a human to win, at least if the human is a top GM - I remember Caruana once had it and managed to win. Don't suppose any of us mere mortals could do it.

same with real life

music is the space between the notes, chess is the space between the pieces

. . . well - somehow it's all about the space the K has . . . and always remember: space (time) is curved around mass . . .

more space more opportunities, same concepts applied to videogames like csgo, valorant etc.

@@juniorTheDog1 even martial arts like jiu jitsu and wrestling are all about space

the knight can be traded off for a knight as a bishop and knight is a forced checkmate

How about King and Queen vs King, 2 Bishops and 2 Knights.

Tablebase, not AI. Just computes every possible thing that can happen.

It’s just an engine but a max Stockfish can still beat Magnus in 20 to 25 moves. So either way. It’s beyond our understanding.

@@kingsolo6241 not in 20-25 moves

@@Avocado3699 yes Stockfish will beat any human in 20-25 moves.

@@kingsolo6241 no

Two knights only sometimes win against king and pawn - whether it's a win or a draw depends on a bunch of factors like which file the pawn is on, how far advanced it is, whether it can be blockaded and where the kings are. Never seen any detailed theory on two knights against more than one pawn, but I'd guess most positions would be drawn - in order to win, you'd have to capture all but one of the pawns while keeping the last one blockaded far enough back to convert to a won position.

i know you!!

same xd

How about 120knights vs 156 ping pong balls?

@@r-trooper942 it wont fit...

@@KRwhitenight _Ping pong balls will find a way!_

Rooks are seriously undervalued. Despite a 1pt difference, I played king and 2 rooks against king and queen and 2 rooks slaughters the queen every time.

@@reubenmanzo2054 the Queen has a lot of forking potential tho. I won many games with Queen vs 2 rooks. The trick is separating the rooks

I believe u can always trade one bishop and it's a draw

@@fahimfuad9326 nope it has been proven by tablebase that the stronger side always wins, though sometimes it takes more than 50 moves. Forks can be prevented and a temporary "fortress" in the corner can be broken down

Isn't it like the basic endgame ? You keep king in a box and shrink it until you can checkmate with rook coveres by king ?

Queen and pawn against 2 knights, 2 bishops?

@@reubenmanzo2054 No that would be 10 vs 12, not fair. Queen and 3 pawns might work

@@JustAnotherCommenter Queen (9) and pawn (1) is 10. 2 knights (4) and 2 bishops (6) is also 10.

@@reubenmanzo2054 So you're saying a knight is worth 2 points? Do you even learn chess? Bullcrap.

@@JustAnotherCommenter What reason is there for the knight to be 3? By looking at endgame scenarios, we can construct the value for all pieces from first principles. Pawn: being the standard piece, 1pt. I think we can agree all other pieces are worth more than the pawn. As demonstrated in the above video, 2 knights can't force checkmate, whereas 2 bishops can. Therefore, bishop must be greater than knight. Since 1 rook can force checkmate without requiring another piece, apart from the obvious, rook must be greater than bishop. Now, there's a certain point line to force checkmate, if you're at or above that line, it's possible, if you're below that line, it's not. That line quite happily sits at bishop plus knight, since bishop and knight can force checkmate, so we can safely sit the rook there. You'll notice that aside from the pawn, I haven't assigned any values yet, but here's what we have so far: B>N, R=B+N. The queen has the movement capacity of a rook and a bishop in 1 piece, so we can sit the queen at rook plus bishop and then plus 1 to account for the fact that the queen only occupies 1 square compared to 2 squares for rook and bishop. So, the final formulas are: B>N, R=B+N, Q=R+B+1. If we set the knight to 3, as you've posited, then since bishop is greater than knight, it must be at least 4. This in turn puts the rook at 4+3=7 and the queen at 7+4+1=12. I think we can agree those values are wrong. However, if we let the knight be 2, this leaves room to put the bishop at 3 (tick), which makes the rook 3+2=5 (tick) and the queen 5+3+1=9 (tick). If we let the knight be 2pts, everything else falls into place.

I think he moved the wrong knight when delivering the check.

We say horse over here too (Sweden), but in English it's called knight. 😉

it can be pretty difficult but yeah

U can't check with a king

Stockfish

@@plop_plop_plop Yeah, that's the engine, but I'd like to know the name of the GUI

@@viljami.haakana.laulut i use lichess looks similar to this

@@plop_plop_plop stockfish is the engine

@@viljami.haakana.laulut probably Chessbase or a browser GUI

I once did queen vs 2 knights and 2 bishops. It's been demonstrated to be winnable from either side.

If he lost a knight then he couldn’t win

No, you’re king can’t cover both escape routes

No, i don’t think so. Any competent opponent would just keep their king on the other color and you can’t checkmate with your own king.

You could fill the whole board with light squared bishops and its still a draw. Even if your opponent purposely forces themselves to the corner etc.

nope, it is still draw by insufficient material even if you have 9 one colored bishop or however many more. Even if the opponent play completely bad moves they can't get mated.

Okay, then h7->g8 is a blunder.

Only if they have a pawn you can blockade on their side of the board with a knight. You have to essentially force the king into the area with the blockaded pawn, abandon the blockade to create what would otherwise be a stalemate, but since the enemy pawn can advance instead of stalemate you can position your pieces to checkmate. Without the blockaded pawn, you can never force them into a situation where they have no escapes without also letting them stalemate. To avoid stalemate, you have to create a hole, which lets them continue indefinitely.

2 knights vs pawn, depending on the position it can take until 110 moves to force the mate

Yes but he played a different checkmate. I don't see what's wrong.

I was just saying 😅

You mean kh6? It's still trade and stockfish won't let you checkmate with 2 knights

no one really knows, even in the oldest known versions of chess knights already moved in L-shapes, my guess is that people thought it was an interesting piece and so the knight never unchanged

How does that stop black's idea of shuffling the king between c6 and c7?