two knights vs rook

dcgreens
[COMMENT DELETED]
thePunish3r
gregdek wrote:

 

My own struggle with Rook versus Two Knights.  I had no idea what I was doing.  :)

You should've taken the rook with the fork instead of the bishop. I like my chances with single knight vs single bishop much better.

RubenHogenhout
gimly schreef:

Finally, i'm posting this game.  The whole thing is annotated -something i try to do with all my games-, but really, my interest is on the endgame position.  Feel free to comment.  I don't have the Fritz lines, but i do remember two key points Fritz made, and i'll note them in the annotations.  Thanks again for comments.

With Qe2 and d3 white choses one of the most boring lines of the Petrov. But still how it went and if you are good in the endgame...  I think after 29... Nfxd4 with the other Knight thus.. then black is allright.

 

RubenHogenhout
[COMMENT DELETED]
yureesystem

Knight c6 is the best, because it limits rook activity on backrank and seventh rank, so covering e7 and d8 squares and protecting the a7 pawn, this will make it hard for to attack your pawns; Your other knight can come to e7, they protect and coordinated, this will allow you to advance the king in the center. It be impossible to lose this endgame but loose knights can be a target.

yureesystem

You lose because you fail to protect essential squares, one them being a e5, e7 d8 squares, knights need the aid of the king and so you can protect and centralize your king, so setup will be knight onn c6 and e7 and king going to f6. You lost your d5 pawn in two moves thse squares pointed out weren't cover by you knights. Endgame you must make a plan and where you going to place your pieces. This one I immediate realize you must limit the rook scope. 

The_Real_LF
I'm still learning about chess so my opinion shouldn't count for much but I don't know why you resigned, seems to me like you could of had some cooking or at the very least got some valuable end-game experience even if you would of lost the natural way. Maybe you could of got a nice fork on your opponent.
gregbrill
szachmalp wrote:

http:/www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1127641856

I had two knights vs. one rook. I was able to promote a pawn.

In my opinion, you promoted a pawn because you had done the good work of getting up 2 pawns not because you had knights, so he or she didn't have time to win all three by the time you promoted.

GM_YuGen2776

Generally depending on the position the game is a draw,however as you mentioned their were still pawns on the boards which leads me to think that it was about equal.Although i do not know the position which you are referring to i think if you are able to eliminate all the pawns and have a rook vs 2 knights it is a draw.

GM_YuGen2776

Never mind,white is completely winning in the game shown above,2 knights vs a rook plus 2 extra pawns equals an easy victory.

Alpha139

Check out this #chess game: ChandraUmeshRaavi vs Alpha139 - https://www.chess.com/daily/game/243647564 I recently played such an end game. I was somehow able to fork and take the rook.

WindowsEnthusiast
Alpha139 wrote:

Check out this #chess game: ChandraUmeshRaavi vs Alpha139 - https://www.chess.com/daily/game/243647564 I recently played such an end game. I was somehow able to fork and take the rook.

It was no accident IMO; White's weak kingside pawns (doubled and isolated) are such a liability that the knights have an easy time here.

gambitfan

Let's see what chessgames.com says about endgames NN|R.

NN is the superior side (6.5) against R (5).

chessgames.com's data bank is 1 million games.

NN|R has only 2games all drawn : 0|100|0.

Let us add one pawn on each side : NNP|RP (37 games) 8|89|2.

2 Pawns : NN2P|R2P (76 games) 46% win|46% draw|8% loss.

3 Pawns : NN3P|R3P (81 games)  56|33|11.

ghost_of_pushwood

Wow, Eebster lives!

deaf_blue_bottles
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:

Wow, Eebster lives!

The windows_-7 kid is a blast from the past too.

Although he's probably a windows adult these days.

ghost_of_pushwood

Oh yeah, I remember his single-minded dedication to the cause. lol

JGPyth is here as well.

congrandolor

Fascinating

ghost_of_pushwood

, Captain

shameimaruaya32

Don't know much about this endgame but my understanding is that generally 2 knights have a slight advantage, but should be drawn if both sides are active.

RPvNNP is peculiar in that the rook could be given up for the pawn, or less commonly, the knight, if the side w/ 2N has a rook pawn they may be able to draw (with the fortresses with KNPvK with rook pawn). Knowing when to sac rook for pawn in an otherwise lost position requires a bit of 2NvP endgame knowledge, but the chances are virtually nonexistent and I wouldn't even recommend preparing for this. If the side with the rook is winning and they sac rook for pawn to promote their pawn... well then we have a Qv2N ending which is even rarer.

On the other side, giving up a knight for a pawn almost always ends up in a drawn position, and as there are 2 knights this shouldn't be too hard usually.

I guess the only practical winning chances come when either side has an extra pawn, but even then, in RPvNNPP if you can trade pawns and sac rook for last pawn you got the draw. Maybe there could be a knight for pawn sac, and then a RvNPP ending might have good winning chances for the knight. Or even a rook for knight sac if the last remaining pawn is a rook pawn and a fortress can be maIde.

In RPPvNNP you could either sac both knights for both pawns (if the resulting RvP position is drawn of course), trade pawns and sac knight for pawn for a hopefully easy RvN draw, or just... i don't even know...

All this is just irrelevant I think at this point

ghost_of_pushwood

lol