Answers.Body: <p>One interesting forced mate which nobody has mentioned is K+N+N v K+P.</p>
  
  <p>Provided the pawn is not far advanced the side with the 2 knights drives the opposing king towards a corner. At a certain point when the driving can be completed by K+N the other knight blockades the pawn. The K+N finish driving the opposing king into a corner, building a prison, say a1+b1 (i.e. the opposing king can only alternate between a1 and b1), with king on b3 and knight on a2. The blockading knight then comes over to help deliver checkmate with stalemate avoided because the pawn can move.</p>
  
  <p>Similar game shown below:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "2k5/7p/2K1N3/5N2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
  1. Ne7+ Kb8 
  2. Kb6 h5 
  3. Nc5 h4
  4. Nd7+ Ka8
  5. Nd5 h3
  6. Nc7#
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-10T13:59:50.610Z
Answers.Text: But so is K+N+N v K.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-27T16:07:47.957Z
Answers.Text: The observation by Brian Towers makes most of this discussion moot, but the question as posed is not viable. Tablebases show us that some endings like KQ vs KNN are winnable by perfect play from some starting positions but not from others. So the material advantage alone does not determine winnability
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-09T16:02:01.050Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-09T23:43:10.747Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-12-09T23:43:10.747Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>K+N+B, K+B+B, K+R, K+Q, and K+N+N are.  The latter is a helpmate.</p>
  
  <p>K+N and K+B are insufficient.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-15T11:58:48.610Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-03-15T11:58:48.610Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Answers.Body: <p>AFAIK sufficient mating material is considered as such if a "helpmate" can be demonstrated in any number of moves. Put another way, it is as if the player that ran out of time is out of the game, and now the other player controls both sides. If a checkmate position can be reached this way, that other player wins the game, otherwise it's a draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-27T11:31:48.910Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-27T11:31:48.910Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: yonil
Answers.Body: <p>Most basic first - this rule is the reason that <em>King vs King</em> is an immediate draw. Neither side has a piece to check with, let alone checkmate with. A position that is a draw because neither side can win is called a "dead position".</p>
  
  <p>Playing against a bare king, a bishop or a knight is insufficient to checkmate with, and therefore K+B v K and K+N v K is always a dead position. Most online playing sites end there, and consider everything else winnable.</p>
  
  <p>K+Q v K, K+R v K, K+B+B v K, K+B+N v K are all endings in which white can even <em>force</em> mate (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate#Basic_checkmates" rel="noreferrer">an overview of basic checkmates on Wikipedia)</a>. Because you ask for it explicitly, here is an example of a mate with N and B:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "k7/8/NKB5/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>There are some special cases. K+N+N v K is tricky -- white can't <em>force</em> mate, but mate is still possible:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "6k1/8/6K1/4N3/4N3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>White plays <strong>1.Nf6+</strong>, and black avoids mate by going to f8. But if he goes into the corner with <strong>1...Kh8??</strong>, then <strong>2.Nf7#</strong> mates.</p>
  
  <p>So K+N+N v K is basically always given an immediate draw by the player with the knights in a slow game, because he knows he won't win. It will be awarded a draw by the arbiter if black claims one based on rule G.6 [the old "10.2", before july 1 2014], if the other requirements of that rule are met, and it's trivial to make 50 moves without losing. But if black runs out of time, black loses. And in a blitz game where nobody is writing down moves to count them, that may happen.</p>
  
  <p>K+B v K+B is also tricky:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "5B2/8/8/8/8/7K/8/6bk w - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>With the bishops on the same color, mate isn't possible. It's an immediate draw.</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "8/5B2/8/8/8/7K/8/6bk w - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>But with opposite colored bishops it is: <strong>1.Bd5#</strong> mates.</p>
  
  <p>In most other endgames it is possible to think of a way that one or both sides can be mated. In particular, if there are pawns, it is usually possible that one of them promotes and checkmates later. but there are exceptions:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "4k3/8/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>To a human it's immediately obvious that the kings will never be able to cross to the other side, so this is a dead position. Engines have no clue, though. Mine thinks white is minutely worse.</p>
  
  <p>And in <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4963/longest-sequence-of-mutually-forced-moves">the recent question about sequences of forced moves</a>, limulus proposed this position with an "infinite loop" of forced moves:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "8/6p1/1p3pPk/1P3Pp1/1Pp3p1/KpP3P1/1P6/8 - - - 0 0 "]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Neither king can break out of its jail -- so this is just another example of a dead position. Immediate draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-11-06T20:43:22.990Z
Answers.Text: I was curious if engines still had no clue about that pawn fortress. Latest Stockfish instantly gives a 0.0 evaluation, top engines got a lot better at this stuff these last years.
Answers.UserDisplayName: 12345ieee
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-09-10T04:01:03.660Z
Answers.Text: @12345ieee: Yeah, but there are still positions where they get confused by pawn fortresses, for example Lichess's Stockfish says that [this](https://lichess.org/analysis/4k3/8/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/3B4/8/4K3_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is +1.1, but it's a dead position (the bishop cannot cross the center line, and would be unable to make forward progress even if it could). It does figure it out if you add depth, though.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kevin
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-03-15T13:14:51.820Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-03-08T14:29:00.263Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-04-13T12:48:53.193Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Body: <p>The FIDE chess rules describe that "The game is draw when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves" (FIDE rule 9.6).  This rules is sometimes referred to as "Insufficient mating material rule", and the material that results in draw based on this rule is described in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_%28chess%29#Draws_in_all_games">Draws in all games</a>.  So this covers the case where even a helpmate (or checkmate by unskilled play) is not possible with the present material.  So:</p>
  
  <p>What is sufficient mating material, whereby a skilled player can force another skilled player into checkmate?</p>
  
  <p>Some combinations are well known, like:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>K + Q vs. K</li>
  <li>K + R vs. K</li>
  <li>K + B(w) + B(b) vs. K</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>But is for example K + N + B vs. K sufficient mating material ?</p>
  
Tags: <rules><checkmate><draw><material-balance><dead-position>
Title: What is sufficient mating material?
ThreadText: # What is sufficient mating material?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-15)
  
  The FIDE chess rules describe that "The game is draw when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves" (FIDE rule 9.6). This rules is sometimes referred to as "Insufficient mating material rule", and the material that results in draw based on this rule is described in [Draws in all games](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_%28chess%29#Draws_in_all_games). So this covers the case where even a helpmate (or checkmate by unskilled play) is not possible with the present material. So:
  
  What is sufficient mating material, whereby a skilled player can force another skilled player into checkmate?
  
  Some combinations are well known, like:
  
  * K + Q vs. K
  * K + R vs. K
  * K + B(w) + B(b) vs. K
  
  But is for example K + N + B vs. K sufficient mating material ?
  
  **Tags:** rules, checkmate, draw, material-balance, dead-position
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-03-15. Score: 25 | Accepted answer
  
  Most basic first - this rule is the reason that *King vs King* is an immediate draw. Neither side has a piece to check with, let alone checkmate with. A position that is a draw because neither side can win is called a "dead position".
  
  Playing against a bare king, a bishop or a knight is insufficient to checkmate with, and therefore K+B v K and K+N v K is always a dead position. Most online playing sites end there, and consider everything else winnable.
  
  K+Q v K, K+R v K, K+B+B v K, K+B+N v K are all endings in which white can even *force* mate (see [an overview of basic checkmates on Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate#Basic_checkmates). Because you ask for it explicitly, here is an example of a mate with N and B:
  
  ```
  [FEN "k7/8/NKB5/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  There are some special cases. K+N+N v K is tricky -- white can't *force* mate, but mate is still possible:
  
  ```
  [FEN "6k1/8/6K1/4N3/4N3/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  White plays **1.Nf6+**, and black avoids mate by going to f8. But if he goes into the corner with **1...Kh8??**, then **2.Nf7#** mates.
  
  So K+N+N v K is basically always given an immediate draw by the player with the knights in a slow game, because he knows he won't win. It will be awarded a draw by the arbiter if black claims one based on rule G.6 [the old "10.2", before july 1 2014], if the other requirements of that rule are met, and it's trivial to make 50 moves without losing. But if black runs out of time, black loses. And in a blitz game where nobody is writing down moves to count them, that may happen.
  
  K+B v K+B is also tricky:
  
  ```
  [FEN "5B2/8/8/8/8/7K/8/6bk w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  With the bishops on the same color, mate isn't possible. It's an immediate draw.
  
  ```
  [FEN "8/5B2/8/8/8/7K/8/6bk w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  But with opposite colored bishops it is: **1.Bd5#** mates.
  
  In most other endgames it is possible to think of a way that one or both sides can be mated. In particular, if there are pawns, it is usually possible that one of them promotes and checkmates later. but there are exceptions:
  
  ```
  [FEN "4k3/8/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  To a human it's immediately obvious that the kings will never be able to cross to the other side, so this is a dead position. Engines have no clue, though. Mine thinks white is minutely worse.
  
  And in [the recent question about sequences of forced moves](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4963/longest-sequence-of-mutually-forced-moves), limulus proposed this position with an "infinite loop" of forced moves:
  
  ```
  [FEN "8/6p1/1p3pPk/1P3Pp1/1Pp3p1/KpP3P1/1P6/8 - - - 0 0 "]
  
  ```
  
  Neither king can break out of its jail -- so this is just another example of a dead position. Immediate draw.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: I was curious if engines still had no clue about that pawn fortress. Latest Stockfish instantly gives a 0.0 evaluation, top engines got a lot better at this stuff these last years.  
  > **username_7**: @username_6: Yeah, but there are still positions where they get confused by pawn fortresses, for example Lichess's Stockfish says that [this](https://lichess.org/analysis/4k3/8/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/3B4/8/4K3_w_-_-_0_1?color=white) is +1.1, but it's a dead position (the bishop cannot cross the center line, and would be unable to make forward progress even if it could). It does figure it out if you add depth, though.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2014-12-09. Score: 6
  
  One interesting forced mate which nobody has mentioned is K+N+N v K+P.
  
  Provided the pawn is not far advanced the side with the 2 knights drives the opposing king towards a corner. At a certain point when the driving can be completed by K+N the other knight blockades the pawn. The K+N finish driving the opposing king into a corner, building a prison, say a1+b1 (i.e. the opposing king can only alternate between a1 and b1), with king on b3 and knight on a2. The blockading knight then comes over to help deliver checkmate with stalemate avoided because the pawn can move.
  
  Similar game shown below:
  
  ```
  [FEN "2k5/7p/2K1N3/5N2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
  1. Ne7+ Kb8 
  2. Kb6 h5 
  3. Nc5 h4
  4. Nd7+ Ka8
  5. Nd5 h3
  6. Nc7#
  
  ```
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: But so is K+N+N v K.  
  > **username_3**: The observation by username_1 username_1 makes most of this discussion moot, but the question as posed is not viable. Tablebases show us that some endings like KQ vs KNN are winnable by perfect play from some starting positions but not from others. So the material advantage alone does not determine winnability  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-03-15. Score: 3
  
  K+N+B, K+B+B, K+R, K+Q, and K+N+N are. The latter is a helpmate.
  
  K+N and K+B are insufficient.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2017-07-27. Score: 2
  
  AFAIK sufficient mating material is considered as such if a "helpmate" can be demonstrated in any number of moves. Put another way, it is as if the player that ran out of time is out of the game, and now the other player controls both sides. If a checkmate position can be reached this way, that other player wins the game, otherwise it's a draw.
  
  
  ---
  
  