Try to trace back to original source, not some online aggregator site, and let me know what you think.

(This is actually a sincere request, fwiw.)

But the Mayet Mate has a definite source, which is somewhat unclear, and started the confusion.

I think it's fine to invent mates, heck, I did it myself several times (Railroad, Balestra, Escalator, Q+B dovetail), but I think the pattern must be clear and useful.

That's why I did most of my work on <ChessTempo>. The ratings and tagging provided a good feedback loop - and it's also why those mates now have widespread, accepted, usage.

Messiah - I am a fan of the chessfox pages in general. Unfortunately, they're under the influence of Wikipedia, which is under the influence of "The Big Book of Chess" which was poorly written. (Poorly written you say FTB? The author is known for his rush to publish, lack of attention to detail, and little or no editing. A BIG book should actually contain chess games inside!)

It's my conviction (until I see a non-internet source of high regard, likely a foreign-published book not originally written in English) that Mayet's Mate is a bishop on the long diagonal only, anywhere on the long diagonal. The protected rook gives check.

Anderssen's Mate is protected pawn-supports-rook in the corner. It is similar to but not a Mayet's mate.

The big shot researcher recently took up Mayet's Mate as the topic and failed miserably.

Biographer Bistro (kibitz #25245)

Then the liar trolls me on this page saying <stone free or die: There's no such mate.> I suppose he "invented" its disappearance over the last three weeks?

click for larger view

Mayet's Mate on the long diagonal.

<I'm tired of the rag, but the obvious dishonesty repeated over and over is allowed. Just one of many examples of dishonesty: chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #39471)>

You claim you want to talk chess, but constantly verve off on temper tantums.

Again, I challenge you to find the original source where Mayet's Mate appears.

If one scours the net you'll find it has some fairly infrequent usage - but even then with differing definitions.

Likely because the original source didn't clearly define the mate.

click for larger view

You see that the bishop is merely playing a supporting role here - and only attacks one square within reach of the Black king.

https://chessfox.com/mayets-mate/

Compare this to Morphy's famous <Opera Mate>:

click for larger view

Here the bishop attacks two squares, one supporting the rook who delivers mate, and a flight square the rook misses.

Now compare the above to the final mate position in this game:

click for larger view

Clearly this isn't a <Mayet Mate> (whatever that may be fwiw), it's a <Opera Mate>, since the bishop is also covering the g7 square.

I agree, the term comes from (afaik) the classic book <Art of the Checkmate>.

But, as I've said, I have several problems with their discussion. Normally an excellent and clear book, the characterization of what exactly constitutes a <Mayet Mate> is confused. At least I wasn't able to get a clear idea of how it uniquely sets itself off from the <Anderssen> style mates.

And this one I don't know the answer to myself.

I'd like to know where Renaud and Kahn got the position they illustrate in their book (with its confusing caption).

I never use castling privileges in characterizing a mate, though I suppose one might consider it, as some thematic attacks involve ripping open a castled position (say cracking the h- or a-file).

Usually the mates are characterized by the pieces involved and the geometry used to trap the king.

Remember, I'm not sure what a <Mayet Mate> is just yet (more on this later). But I tried to point out the distinction between the <Anderssen Mate> and the <Opera Mate> by the need for the bishop to cover one of the flight squares.

I'm prone to consider abstracting patterns too, and present this simple example for consideration accordingly:

<White to mate-in-2>

click for larger view

Such embarrassing abstract NONSENSE posting aint anything like that no how, no way.