Answers.Body: <p>As Daniel indicated in a comment, the answer here is that, <strong>no</strong>, White cannot force checkmate without promoting at least one pawn. Enough toying with the position makes this pretty clear, intuitively. The only way it could possibly be done would be to keep the black king in the corner it's in, and while doing so, to then checkmate by advancing the pawns. The intuitive reason this isn't feasible is because the white king is the only option for keeping the black king from running to the other side of the board, but while he's doing that, there's not enough support behind the pawns to advance them for checkmate.</p>
  
  <p>But I want to point out that if one finds that intuitive explanation unconvincing or unsatisfying, there is a more rigorous way to demonstrate that White cannot force checkmate from your position without promoting, and that is to do a little bit of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_analysis" rel="nofollow">retrograde analysis</a>. (Incidentally, the retrograde analysis subfield of chess problems provides some of what you ask for at the end of your post, namely problems with a very particular sort of solution.) Basically, all I mean is that we should work backwards: with the given material on the board, there's only a small handful of positions that could possibly be our final checkmate position. Thus, if we can show for each of those positions that there couldn't be a forced win that ends that way, then we know it can't be done.</p>
  
  <p>For instance, here's a non-promotion checkmate position with the given material:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[fen "5k2/5PP1/4K2P/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>But I claim we couldn't possibly <em>force</em> Black into this position: the final move would have to have been <code>100.g7#</code> (where I just picked 100 arbitrarily), the move before that would have to have been <code>99...Kf8</code> (moving from either e8 or from g8), and the move before that had to be <code>99.f7+</code>. OK, so we know that White must have played this <code>99.f7+</code> with the black king either on e8 or on g8. But if the black king was on e8, he could have instead played <code>99...Kd8</code> in reply, and if the black king was on g8 then he could have instead played <code>99...Kh8</code> in reply. The point is that, either way, White couldn't actually have forced Black into that final checkmate position.</p>
  
  <p>Alright, so that's one possibility down. There are others of course, but a similar retrograde analysis for each of those will confirm that none of them can actually be forced, and that's all you need for an airtight proof that White can't force checkmate from your initial position without promoting a pawn.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-09-23T03:18:31.583Z
Answers.Text: I'd like to learn retrograde from now.. It seem to be called, `known but can't be done` moves.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ahmad Azwar Anas
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-09-22T03:24:32.120Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-09-22T03:24:32.120Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Body: <p>I have a chess puzzle here:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "7k/8/8/4KPPP/8/8/8/8 - - - 0 0 "]
  </code></pre>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Can White force mate without promotion?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>And if such exist, where can I find some more chess puzzles like this, which feature particular and restrictive directions?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-09-13T16:18:53.827Z
Comments.Text: A forced mate is impossible without a promotion here...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Daniel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-09-13T22:04:53.787Z
Comments.Text: Ahmad, I took the liberty of editing the question, and I hope I didn't change your intended meaning. If I did, then don't hesitate to undo my edit.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-09-18T03:43:41.173Z
Comments.Text: thanks @[Ed Dean](http://chess.stackexchange.com/users/167/ed-dean), I appreciate that.. and for @[Daniel δ](http://chess.stackexchange.com/users/86/daniel), yes, I've tried some. Is there some theory to explain that??
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ahmad Azwar Anas
Tags: <analysis><problems>
Title: Make checkmate with pawns without promotion
ThreadText: # Make checkmate with pawns without promotion
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-09-13)
  
  I have a chess puzzle here:
  
  ```
  [FEN "7k/8/8/4KPPP/8/8/8/8 - - - 0 0 "]
  
  ```
  
  > Can White force mate without promotion?
  
  And if such exist, where can I find some more chess puzzles like this, which feature particular and restrictive directions?
  
  **Tags:** analysis, problems
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: A forced mate is impossible without a promotion here...  
  > **username_2**: username_0, I took the liberty of editing the question, and I hope I didn't change your intended meaning. If I did, then don't hesitate to undo my edit.  
  > **username_0**: thanks @[Ed Dean](http://chess.stackexchange.com/users/167/ed-dean), I appreciate that.. and for @[username_1 δ](http://chess.stackexchange.com/users/86/username_1), yes, I've tried some. Is there some theory to explain that??  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2013-09-22. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  As username_1 indicated in a comment, the answer here is that, **no**, White cannot force checkmate without promoting at least one pawn. Enough toying with the position makes this pretty clear, intuitively. The only way it could possibly be done would be to keep the black king in the corner it's in, and while doing so, to then checkmate by advancing the pawns. The intuitive reason this isn't feasible is because the white king is the only option for keeping the black king from running to the other side of the board, but while he's doing that, there's not enough support behind the pawns to advance them for checkmate.
  
  But I want to point out that if one finds that intuitive explanation unconvincing or unsatisfying, there is a more rigorous way to demonstrate that White cannot force checkmate from your position without promoting, and that is to do a little bit of [retrograde analysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_analysis). (Incidentally, the retrograde analysis subfield of chess problems provides some of what you ask for at the end of your post, namely problems with a very particular sort of solution.) Basically, all I mean is that we should work backwards: with the given material on the board, there's only a small handful of positions that could possibly be our final checkmate position. Thus, if we can show for each of those positions that there couldn't be a forced win that ends that way, then we know it can't be done.
  
  For instance, here's a non-promotion checkmate position with the given material:
  
  ```
  [fen "5k2/5PP1/4K2P/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  But I claim we couldn't possibly *force* Black into this position: the final move would have to have been `100.g7#` (where I just picked 100 arbitrarily), the move before that would have to have been `99...Kf8` (moving from either e8 or from g8), and the move before that had to be `99.f7+`. OK, so we know that White must have played this `99.f7+` with the black king either on e8 or on g8. But if the black king was on e8, he could have instead played `99...Kd8` in reply, and if the black king was on g8 then he could have instead played `99...Kh8` in reply. The point is that, either way, White couldn't actually have forced Black into that final checkmate position.
  
  Alright, so that's one possibility down. There are others of course, but a similar retrograde analysis for each of those will confirm that none of them can actually be forced, and that's all you need for an airtight proof that White can't force checkmate from your initial position without promoting a pawn.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I'd like to learn retrograde from now.. It seem to be called, `known but can't be done` moves.  
  
  ---
  
  