Is it important to learn the minor piece mating patterns?

I recall reading about K + B + N against K many years ago, and I think the book I was reading said that the side with B and N has to first push the opponent's king into a corner square that is the color that's opposite of the colored squares that the bishop operates on. Then, once that is accomplished, the side with 2 pieces pushes the opponent's king to the corner square where its bishop can deliver the final check.

If I were to practice this, I'd give the B + N to Stockfish or Houdini on their highest level, and watch it checkmate me. I'd let them do it a few times, observe the technique, switch sides and try to checkmate the computer.

For an ambitious beginner that is a member of chess.com, by all means devote 15 mins to a video on how to complete K+B+N v K but only if you want to.  That will put you ahead of almost beginners (and indeed most chess players).

Actually learning the ending is difficult, and not good value return on study time.  I tried to learn it several times.  The last was the learn section here, and I cannot beat the harder defence levels reliably.

If you do learn it, know that it was for entertainment, not chess reasons.

You are lucky if you'll have to deliver K+N+B vs K checkmate even once in your life (I've never had to even though I've played chess for a real long time). They're just so rare.

Rook endings, on the other hand, appear fairly regularly, so studying those is a way better investment of your time than learning those esoteric checkmates you may never need in your entire life.

I think that the way chess is being taught right now needs to undergo some serious changes and transformations. Currently, so many beginners are taught that 1. e4 e5 openings are the only way to go and that you cannot be a good player without learning these certain checkmate patterns, such as K + B + N against K.

While there is definitely some merit to all this, I think the problem with this is that it that robs newcomers from learning about rich dynamics of the game and encourages a sort of tunnel vision (speaking from the experience here). So much of chess is pattern recognition, and the more patterns you see, the better you'll get So, yes, these mating patterns are important, but I think it's more important to learn patterns from all phases of the game and look at as many different positions as possible. I love all the new computer-assisted learning, but nothing beats well-written, well-annotated chess books that look at a wide variety of positions and explain the reasons why behind each of them. And it's in human nature to learn just enough and then keep stagnating with the same knowledge for years, so as long as you keep adding new knowledge little by little, day after day, you'll get very good at chess.

Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a respected  chess coach and chess YouTuber based in California: 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP5SPSG_sWSYPjqJYMNwL_Q

I think it's good to know. 

It's essential to know QK VS K, RK VS K.

If you are feeling ambitious, then learn BBK VS K checkmate. 

If you have mastered those, then learn BNK VS K checkmate.   

I hope that this helps.

I've never had a chess coach, but I agree. Making beginners stick to only e4 e5 can discourage new players from being creative and finding what they want in a game, whether it be an aggressive attack or a solid structure. Not to mention they'll land in very unfamiliar territory the moment the opponent doesn't play e4 or e5 in response. I believe coaches should provide their students with the most common yet simple openings to choose from like the Vienna, the French, and the London, tell them what their pros and cons are, and let them decide what they want to learn. If they can't decide for themselves, only then you teach them the default e4 e5.

Teaching a beginning player openings and letting him/her decide for themselves which ones they like most would be a bad thing to do. The opening play is not that important for a beginning player. A beginning player needs to be taught tactics and how to spot them. For the rest, they need to learn how to think like a chess player. That's how you get stronger. The beginning player needs to learn how to play a 'normal' move, no matter what kind of move the opponent makes. To do that, the beginning player needs to learn about middlegame strategies. Where do you put a rook, how to use a knight, what to do in a closed position etc. Just getting taught a few openings will harm that process. For one, the beginning player is not going to get the openings he studied. If I teach the black side of the Sicilian, you'll find that at beginner levels they play 2. Bc4. Another reason is that you don't adapt readily to different moves when you get taught certain moves for the opening. Beginning players can't readily adapt to unusual moves when they just study some lines in an opening. If you get taught the London, you'll respond to 1. d4, b6 with the standard setup instead of just grabbing the center with 2. e4, which is what the opening principles would tell you to do. That is a bad way to play chess. Everyone needs to learn to see what the idea is of their opponent's moves and then adapt to it. Thirdly, just the fact that you're spending time on the opening will mean you're not spending your time elsewhere where it would be more useful. 

I agree with what your saying, but my point is that there is more to chess openings than just 1. e4, e5. Not that openings should be the top priority when teaching a beginner. Of course the more important lessons like tactics, piece development, and king safety come first.

#31
The 5 basic checkmates should come first.

Which ones exactly...?

For a beginner, there are only 3 fundamental checkmates (K+Q+R v K, K+Q v K and K+R v K) that they need to know and master. They should be spending more time on concepts like opening principles, tactics and pattern recognition, basic pawn endings, and basic/common checkmating patterns such as the Opera Mate and the back rank mate.

It is unnecessary to teach complex endings like K+B+K v K when they need to master the basics first. It's like teaching someone calculus when they can't solve simple mathematics like 2+2.

#33
The 5 basic checkmates are: KQ vs. K, KR vs. K, KBB vs. K, KBN vs. K, KNN vs. KP
Capablanca treats these 5 at the begin of his "Chess Fundamentals' and for good reason.

In my experience, ive had K+q, k+r, k+r+r, and k+r+minor piece come up far more often than only minor piece checkmates, but my experience isnt that much.

every pattern is important to learn, so when you are low on time you can recognize easily 

There is more subtelty here.

You absolutely need to learn Q and R.  It's worth looking at B+B and B+N.  It's worth actively ignoring N+N v P.

I'll grant that B+N is worth watching several times to understand how they can work well together in other situations.

Seems like a fake quote.

Capablanca actually said, "The student would do well to exercise himself methodically in this ending, as it gives a very good idea of the actual power of the pieces, and it requires foresight in order to accomplish the mate within the fifty moves which are granted by the rules."

it is 

For me it comes down to this. You won't be learning those mates for the "chance" you get it in a game. You would learn these types of mates, once you get to a higher level where understanding piece coordination is essential to many different endgames, not just the mating ones, ones where you are fighting to win and have two bishops. Piece coordination/vision is key at a certain level and it can be helpful for that! Now, in my opinion, it isn't worth trying to know these mating patterns if you are below 1600-1800 rapid chess.com (in most cases, sometimes it can be lower or even higher, depends on the person. 

#41
Yes, Capablanca wrote that too, but that does not mean he said or wrote nothing else.
He authored 6 books and as a world champion he gave interviews and lectures on chess.