I know all the basic checkmates like King and pawn vs King, King and Rook vs King, and King and Queen vs King. But I was wondering whether I should try to learn the King and two bishops vs King checkmate.

Does that checkmate position often occur?

It occurs extremely rarely but it might teach you something about piece coordination and it's not too difficult. On the other hand, mating with knight and bishop is really tough and outside of curiosity, I doubt it's worth learning.

I've never used it and I know I've played tens of thousands of games in my life. It very seldom occurs.

I think B+B is actually not that difficult for a club player to work out OTB. there are certainly far harder minor piece mates like N+B vs K and R+K vs N+K. 

I spent around a few hours learning and trying to understand the N+B mate a few years ago and I've never used it and now can't even remember how to do it lol.

If you have ambitions to become a titled player you should definitely learn all these tricky minor piece checkmates though.

I don't think so. If you are neck and neck with the opponent maybe you should use it. But if either one of you are better than the other.This checkmate just won't happen.After a lost position or material.You are most likely to have an extra piece to attack and if you still have your rook.That rook can finish the opponent's pawn leaving it barren and they have to react defensively.

right

I knew an expert that forced a 2400 player in a knight/bishop endgame. The master couldn't mate him in time. They were both in time trouble.

b+b--If you want to learn it, even if you never have to do it otb, ok. It's not hard and it won't take long.

n+b--Harder to learn, though not *very* hard. If it pleases you to try, ok, but not a very practical use of chess time. I have learned the Pandolfini way and then later the Muller and Lamprecht method. I prefer the latter as more understandable.

k+q v. k+r This isn't all so rare that we can not even include it in the discussion. I say learn this before n+b if we are being practical.

True, true. I think that is an important fact that too many people overlook when they are deciding if basics are worth their time. Often when you are learning endgame or mating techniques, you are subconciously learning or further cementing necessary ideas. Even an ending like 2b can help calculation, and teach ideas like king containment and creating a mating net, piece limitation and coordination, and ideas like tempo moves to force you opponent to move into a less favorable position. So a 'simple' piece ending can help further reinforce some very useful technical knowledge.

Absolutely true, for me especially, after many practice games B+N endgame against trhe PC, I find I get my Bishops and Knights to work together better in games.

 I suppose working these endings can help one think schematically as well, beyond calculating variations.

I agree

The two bishops is easy enough to work out as you go, no pre learning needed.

As you improve and possibly enter otb tourneys at higher levels learning some of the more difficult mates as mentioned in previous posts can be useful if seeking to make a half point full.

The rook v minor piece endings are relatively common, knight plus bishop for me once per five years on average, two bishops never. Is something worth learning for possibly a once in five year occurrence, well that's your call. In a tourney would you rather finish with that extra half point.

The method of mate with knight and bishop is unique in terms of coordinating the bishop, knight and king and I don't see any specific relevance in other areas of play but I'm happy to be advised otherwise.

Rook v knight a very complex area which some have tried to rationalise eg Ruben Fine; Basic Chess Endings; 1941. Quite a 'heavy' book. If studying I would recommend reading pages 572 & 573 firstly the conclusions and recommendations which in my view gives excellent advice and tips.

>:)

Once again, I dont like to disagree with a much stronger player, but I think this probably has more relevance than any of the other situations. Once a month or so, I practice this against a few chess engines (on blitz), not only because I would be mortified if I could not get the mate in a game, but I think it has improved my understanding of how these two pieces work together even on a fuler board.

Can you or others please help by example illustration.

>:)

Oh, man, you want specifics? I would have to go search through my games....

What I mean is this, I have played that ending maybe a few dozen times against chess engines, and pretty much have it down pat.

I find it easier in games to recognise Knight/Bishop patterns, and every now and again I think I choose a the better square for a piece, if I have more than 1 choice, because I recognise an effective pattern. The right move might easily be more obvious to you, because you are a far better player, but I think I need all the help I can find.

At your level, you can possibly figure out this mate over the board, not me, I have to learn it. And in learning the mate, I also learnt lessons in co-operation.

thanks rooperi, pattern recognition theory applied to combined knight and bishop play sounds rather..., I needed to learn the knight and bishop mate after failing to convert otb, maybe if my pattern recognition skills were better I don't know for me its a daft and meaningless topic area, however people claim to use this technique as a training aid and also in chess software programs so what do I know.

>:)

Learn these patterns.  They'll give you guideposts along the way from disorganized pieces to a mate.  The pawns represent coverage by the pieces.  They're not actual pawns, m'kay?