Answers.Body: <p>I think that is limited to just a few positions.</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>A lone king vs. king.</li>
  <li>king and bishop vs. king.</li>
  <li>A king and bishop vs. king and same colored bishop as the other side.</li>
  <li>A king and multiple bishops of the same color vs. king.</li>
  <li>A king and knight vs. king.</li>
  <li>Any barrier position, where neither side can cross over to the other side.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>Even king and knight vs. king and knight you can get a mating position.</p>
  
  <p>Here is a wonderful position that I "stole" from chess.com that illustrates why that FIDE rule exists. Yes, it was probably not fair for Carlsen to get the full point, but imagine having this position, and not getting the full point.</p>
  
  <pre><code> [FEN "6rk/4NP2/7K/8/8/8/b7/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
    1. fxg8=Q+ Bxg8 {By USCF, and chess.com rules, this is a draw here.} 2. Ng6#
  
  
  
  
   [FEN "6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-12-31T23:15:09.427Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-12-31T23:28:41.147Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-12-31T23:28:41.147Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Body: <p>I saw the game Firouzja vs Carlsen in world blitz championship in which Carlsen flagged Firouzja. Carlsen won because even though he had only a bishop, there could be a possible mate position.</p>
  
  <p>I am asking if there a chess position in which both players have at least one piece, not including the kings, and there is no possible future mate position?</p>
  
  <p>An obvious one is if both players having only one bishop moving on the same color squares. But is there something else?</p>
  
  <p>I am actually looking for a complicated position, not obvious to humans at all, which needs something like 30-50 moves deep analysis for proving there is no any possible mate position.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-12-31T23:38:21.180Z
Comments.Text: While close, this seems slightly different from that other question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-01T01:50:31.863Z
Comments.Text: The answer for the other question answers this one too, and [this question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/27739/a-position-in-which-there-is-no-possible-checkmate) has the same, together with a suggestion to search problem databases like Die Schwalbe's PDB or yacpdb using the keyword "DR" or "Dead Reckoning".
Comments.UserDisplayName: Remellion
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-01T01:55:52.627Z
Comments.Text: While the answers are roughly the same, the question itself is not.
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Tags: <endgame><checkmate><dead-position>
Title: A position in which there is no possible checkmate
ThreadText: # A position in which there is no possible checkmate
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-12-31)
  
  I saw the game Firouzja vs Carlsen in world blitz championship in which Carlsen flagged Firouzja. Carlsen won because even though he had only a bishop, there could be a possible mate position.
  
  I am asking if there a chess position in which both players have at least one piece, not including the kings, and there is no possible future mate position?
  
  An obvious one is if both players having only one bishop moving on the same color squares. But is there something else?
  
  I am actually looking for a complicated position, not obvious to humans at all, which needs something like 30-50 moves deep analysis for proving there is no any possible mate position.
  
  **Tags:** endgame, checkmate, dead-position
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: While close, this seems slightly different from that other question.  
  > **username_2**: The answer for the other question answers this one too, and [this question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/27739/a-position-in-which-there-is-no-possible-checkmate) has the same, together with a suggestion to search problem databases like Die Schwalbe's PDB or yacpdb using the keyword "DR" or "Dead Reckoning".  
  > **username_1**: While the answers are roughly the same, the question itself is not.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-12-31. Score: 3
  
  I think that is limited to just a few positions.
  
  1. A lone king vs. king.
  2. king and bishop vs. king.
  3. A king and bishop vs. king and same colored bishop as the other side.
  4. A king and multiple bishops of the same color vs. king.
  5. A king and knight vs. king.
  6. Any barrier position, where neither side can cross over to the other side.
  
  Even king and knight vs. king and knight you can get a mating position.
  
  Here is a wonderful position that I "stole" from chess.com that illustrates why that FIDE rule exists. Yes, it was probably not fair for Carlsen to get the full point, but imagine having this position, and not getting the full point.
  
  ```
   [FEN "6rk/4NP2/7K/8/8/8/b7/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
    1. fxg8=Q+ Bxg8 {By USCF, and chess.com rules, this is a draw here.} 2. Ng6#
  
   [FEN "6nk/5N2/6K1/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  
  ---
  
  