knight vs 3 pawns

After playing this game and odd ending, I was wondering if a knight would be better than 2 or possibly 3 pawns in an endgame(With or without extra but balanced pawns on the other side)

Here was mine:

A knite could in theory hold off three pawns but in practice it is easier said than done. In almost any endgame position the three pawns are preferable because he who has the pawns has the winning chances.

Really? Then maybe I would have started a "Why won't Tonydal resign?" thread. Not resigning in a clearly questionable position is a little insulting

 That was a little gruff tryst, tonydal is a National Master Im sure he would know when to resign. And i wouldn't be insulted if he played on in that position. The only time im insulted is when they play on when its Q(or R)+K vs K, other than that i have no problem, if you want to play on its your right.

Really, mattDearle? You just inspired my "Why I drink" thread.

What's with all the hostility tryst? I don't really see how this game isn't a draw. tonydal shouldn't need to explain himself as it just takes a bit of observation to see that there's no good way for white to promote  and defend his pawns. They just get blockaded or captured. What may seem obviously lost to you can just as easily be obviously drawn to a more skilled player. If you don't see a continuation, then ask in a nice way instead of being so insulting.

Why aren't there more "Help me with sarcasm" threads? Or "I can't read" threads? Or "Will tic-tac-toe be solved?" threads.

Not to worry tryst, I caught the sarcasm/was able to read your posts.  Maybe it's that some people worship titles to the point where even the hint of dissent is blasphemous

And glancing at the position -- not sure why c5+ was so good, it just drops a pawn right?  Just being patient with a3 seems fine, white's king is comming in on f5 and looks winning to me.

To answer your indirect "witty" question, because the original poster obviously did not think that his position was losing.