Is it genuinely possible for white to checkmate black in this position?

"bishop-versus-knight endgame"

Both sides can play on until checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition, 50 moves rule, draw agreement...
Both sides can lose on time, can resign, can agree on a draw.

"bishop-versus-knight endgame" * Both sides can play on until checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition, 50 moves rule, draw agreement... Both sides can lose on time, can resign, can agree on a draw.

Italiya

@tpr said ^

"bishop-versus-knight endgame"

Both sides can play on until checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition, 50 moves rule, draw agreement...
Both sides can lose on time, can resign, can agree on a draw.

In other words, is such an endgame considered to be within the scope of the rules of chess—meaning an arbiter has no grounds to intervene and it doesn't fall under this clause? <Deliberately playing bad moves is punishable by this article:
11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.>
Is it permissible to play such an endgame at any level of competition—by players of any skill level, all the way up to the World Championship—without any objection, provided that one of the players ends up getting checkmated through legal moves?
This applies whether it’s a queen versus a bishop, or a knight versus a bishop.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/BBbXAv4g) > "bishop-versus-knight endgame" > * Both sides can play on until checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition, 50 moves rule, draw agreement... > Both sides can lose on time, can resign, can agree on a draw. In other words, is such an endgame considered to be within the scope of the rules of chess—meaning an arbiter has no grounds to intervene and it doesn't fall under this clause? <Deliberately playing bad moves is punishable by this article: 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.> Is it permissible to play such an endgame at any level of competition—by players of any skill level, all the way up to the World Championship—without any objection, provided that one of the players ends up getting checkmated through legal moves? This applies whether it’s a queen versus a bishop, or a knight versus a bishop.

tpr

"Is it permissible to play such an endgame at any level of competition"

Yes.

"one of the players ends up getting checkmated through legal moves?"

it is up to the arbiter to after the checkmate judge if 11.1 applies.

"Is it permissible to play such an endgame at any level of competition" * Yes. "one of the players ends up getting checkmated through legal moves?" * it is up to the arbiter to after the checkmate judge if 11.1 applies.

Italiya

@tpr said ^

"Is it permissible to play such an endgame at any level of competition"

Yes.

"one of the players ends up getting checkmated through legal moves?"

it is up to the arbiter to after the checkmate judge if 11.1 applies.

< It is up to the arbiter to judge, after the checkmate, whether Rule 11.1 applies. >

Why? After all, this type of endgame is covered by the basic rules of chess. And you yourself said:
< Yes, always; the arbiter has no role to play. >

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/amnjHNeg) > "Is it permissible to play such an endgame at any level of competition" > * Yes. > > "one of the players ends up getting checkmated through legal moves?" > * it is up to the arbiter to after the checkmate judge if 11.1 applies. < It is up to the arbiter to judge, after the checkmate, whether Rule 11.1 applies. > Why? After all, this type of endgame is covered by the basic rules of chess. And you yourself said: < Yes, always; the arbiter has no role to play. >

tpr

It is up to the arbiter to judge if 11.1 was violated or not.
A) Classical time control, plenty of time left, last round of a tournament, the grandmaster loses against his untitled opponent, who scores a master norm.
B) Blitz, both flags almost falling, player under-promotes to B as the queen is further to reach.
C) Beginner: never promotes to a queen as he always tend to stalemate.
D) Beginner: promotes to a bishop as he had heard opposite colored bishop endgames are draws and he wanted to draw against his stronger opponent.
I guess the arbiter could in case A) rule that 11.1 was violated and not in B), C), or D).

It is up to the arbiter to judge if 11.1 was violated or not. A) Classical time control, plenty of time left, last round of a tournament, the grandmaster loses against his untitled opponent, who scores a master norm. B) Blitz, both flags almost falling, player under-promotes to B as the queen is further to reach. C) Beginner: never promotes to a queen as he always tend to stalemate. D) Beginner: promotes to a bishop as he had heard opposite colored bishop endgames are draws and he wanted to draw against his stronger opponent. I guess the arbiter could in case A) rule that 11.1 was violated and not in B), C), or D).

Italiya

@tpr said ^

It is up to the arbiter to judge if 11.1 was violated or not.
A) Classical time control, plenty of time left, last round of a tournament, the grandmaster loses against his untitled opponent, who scores a master norm.
B) Blitz, both flags almost falling, player under-promotes to B as the queen is further to reach.
C) Beginner: never promotes to a queen as he always tend to stalemate.
D) Beginner: p...

You can’t seem to make up your mind.
Either the arbiter intervenes in this endgame—depending on the situation—or they don’t intervene at all. You settle on one option, only to forget about it later.

<Yes, always; the arbiter has no role to play.>

Am I to understand that the first option has been definitively discarded?

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/qET8DsK5) > It is up to the arbiter to judge if 11.1 was violated or not. > A) Classical time control, plenty of time left, last round of a tournament, the grandmaster loses against his untitled opponent, who scores a master norm. > B) Blitz, both flags almost falling, player under-promotes to B as the queen is further to reach. > C) Beginner: never promotes to a queen as he always tend to stalemate. > D) Beginner: p... You can’t seem to make up your mind. Either the arbiter intervenes in this endgame—depending on the situation—or they don’t intervene at all. You settle on one option, only to forget about it later. <Yes, always; the arbiter has no role to play.> <It is up to the arbiter, after the checkmate, to judge whether Rule 11.1 applies.> Am I to understand that the first option has been definitively discarded?

petri999

I presume you do not arbiter training? arbiter does not - in most cases - intervene unless requested so by the one or both of the players. Rules do not cover all possible eventualities and arbiter may need to rule based on his/her judgement.

Italiya

@petri999 said ^

I presume you do not arbiter training? arbiter does not - in most cases - intervene unless requested so by the one or both of the players. Rules do not cover all possible eventualities and arbiter may need to rule based on his/her judgement.

In this case, the issue isn't how I understand the arbitrator's role; rather, it's that the person can't make up their mind and keeps changing their opinion.

@petri999 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/zggI0fu6) > I presume you do not arbiter training? arbiter does not - in most cases - intervene unless requested so by the one or both of the players. Rules do not cover all possible eventualities and arbiter may need to rule based on his/her judgement. In this case, the issue isn't how I understand the arbitrator's role; rather, it's that the person can't make up their mind and keeps changing their opinion.

Royals_Fan22

@Italiya said ^

In this case, the issue isn't how I understand the arbitrator's role; rather, it's that the person can't make up their mind and keeps changing their opinion.

You're misinterpreting what tpr said. The post you refer that says the arbiter shouldn't be involved is talking about if bishop vs knight endings can be played out without intervention. Then, tpr said that the arbiter could decide after the game if 11.1 is violated, not during. Not contradictory at all.

@Italiya said [^](/forum/redirect/post/iAv7V7cH) > In this case, the issue isn't how I understand the arbitrator's role; rather, it's that the person can't make up their mind and keeps changing their opinion. You're misinterpreting what tpr said. The post you refer that says the arbiter shouldn't be involved is talking about if bishop vs knight endings can be played out without intervention. Then, tpr said that the arbiter could decide after the game if 11.1 is violated, not during. Not contradictory at all.

Italiya

@Royals_Fan22 said ^

In this case, the issue isn't how I understand the arbitrator's role; rather, it's that the person can't make up their mind and keeps changing their opinion.

You're misinterpreting what tpr said. The post you refer that says the arbiter shouldn't be involved is talking about if bishop vs knight endings can be played out without intervention. Then...

If the arbiter plays no role here, then it makes no difference whether it happens after the game or during the game.
If the result can be revised, it means the endgame being played is a matter of dispute.
That is the crux of the matter.
In this case, the arbiter does play a role.

@Royals_Fan22 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/RTaFuMZx) > > In this case, the issue isn't how I understand the arbitrator's role; rather, it's that the person can't make up their mind and keeps changing their opinion. > > You're misinterpreting what tpr said. The post you refer that says the arbiter shouldn't be involved is talking about if bishop vs knight endings can be played out without intervention. Then... If the arbiter plays no role here, then it makes no difference whether it happens after the game or during the game. If the result can be revised, it means the endgame being played is a matter of dispute. That is the crux of the matter. In this case, the arbiter does play a role.