Answers.Body: <p>You have correctly stated that one can certainly mate with a single bishop or a single knight when the other side has some pieces on the board besides a king. Your diagrams for sample mates under these conditions look to be correct.</p>
  <p>What people are usually saying:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>It is impossible to deliver a mate with only a bishop and king (K+B).</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>It is <strong>implied</strong>, that <strong>the other side has only a lone king</strong>, no other pieces.</p>
  <p>So, a more correct way to express the same thought is:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>It is impossible to deliver a mate with only a bishop and king <strong>against a lone king</strong> (K+B <strong>vs K</strong>).</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>now, the statement is not ambiguous and factually correct.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-09-27T05:52:08.843Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-09-27T05:52:08.843Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Anton Menshov
Answers.Body: <p>When people say &quot;you can't win with [insert material here]&quot;, they are talking about forcing a mate with the aforementioned material. This is a very general statement that excludes combinations that win tactically because of a specific position, being assisted by the opponent, and so on. To be more precise, what they should say is &quot;From the starting position, remove all the pieces from the board except [insert desired material confrontation here]. Do not allow the pieces to move further than their third row in the first ten moves. Then [insert color here] can't win&quot;.</p>
  <p>However, such a sentence is much more convoluted than what they are trying to convey. From a pedagogical and pragmatic perspective, a precise statement is rarely useful: Most of the time they just mean that you can't force a mate with [insert material here] against a lone king if it is in the middle of the board.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-09-27T05:53:25.767Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-09-27T05:53:25.767Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pablo S. Ocal
Body: <p>I mean, looks pretty checkmate to me.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XbSRx.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XbSRx.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Everywhere I look this up, they never speak about the fact that it is at least theoretically possible to win with just a bishop and a king. Why is that? I mean shouldn't they at least mention it?</p>
  <p>Same goes for knight and pawn:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1b8w5.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1b8w5.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/2ZfEo.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/2ZfEo.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-20T17:39:26.850Z
Comments.Text: How is this opinion based? lol. seems like a very sensible question to me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-05-01T00:28:08.977Z
Comments.Text: your third position is illegal (no way for black bishop to reach a8)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lucenaposition
Tags: <endgame><checkmate>
Title: Why do people say you can't mate with just a bishop?
ThreadText: # Why do people say you can't mate with just a bishop?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-09-27)
  
  I mean, looks pretty checkmate to me.
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XbSRx.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/XbSRx.png)
  
  Everywhere I look this up, they never speak about the fact that it is at least theoretically possible to win with just a bishop and a king. Why is that? I mean shouldn't they at least mention it?
  
  Same goes for knight and pawn:
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/1b8w5.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/1b8w5.png)
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/2ZfEo.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/2ZfEo.png)
  
  **Tags:** endgame, checkmate
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: How is this opinion based? lol. seems like a very sensible question to me.  
  > **username_2**: your third position is illegal (no way for black bishop to reach a8)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2021-09-27. Score: 8
  
  You have correctly stated that one can certainly mate with a single bishop or a single knight when the other side has some pieces on the board besides a king. Your diagrams for sample mates under these conditions look to be correct.
  
  What people are usually saying:
  
  > It is impossible to deliver a mate with only a bishop and king (K+B).
  
  It is **implied**, that **the other side has only a lone king**, no other pieces.
  
  So, a more correct way to express the same thought is:
  
  > It is impossible to deliver a mate with only a bishop and king **against a lone king** (K+B **vs K**).
  
  now, the statement is not ambiguous and factually correct.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2021-09-27. Score: 2
  
  When people say "you can't win with [insert material here]", they are talking about forcing a mate with the aforementioned material. This is a very general statement that excludes combinations that win tactically because of a specific position, being assisted by the opponent, and so on. To be more precise, what they should say is "From the starting position, remove all the pieces from the board except [insert desired material confrontation here]. Do not allow the pieces to move further than their third row in the first ten moves. Then [insert color here] can't win".
  
  However, such a sentence is much more convoluted than what they are trying to convey. From a pedagogical and pragmatic perspective, a precise statement is rarely useful: Most of the time they just mean that you can't force a mate with [insert material here] against a lone king if it is in the middle of the board.
  
  
  ---
  
  