Is it possible to checkmate with two knights?

Is it possible to checkmate with two knights if the opponent plays perfectly? If so, how is it possible?

UltimateCrusher2 wrote:

Is it possible to checkmate with two knights if the opponent plays perfectly? If so, how is it possible?

This is a joke, right? You are supposed to be a master. You cannot be a master if you do not know this.

No,unless your opponent makes a serious blunder. You can force a mate,if your opponant has a pawn,but only somtimes and it's very hard.

@notmtwain I disagree with your last statement. How many times in your games have you been seriously close to a position of two knights vs a king? If the answer is zero, then you're in the same boat as most of us.

It doesn't matter much, but the answer is no. With best play, the defending side can avoid mate. Staying away from the corners of the board is generally given as the successful strategy for the defender. 

It is possible for the defending side to be mated, but that requires inadequate defense.

1) it really depends on the situation on the board. When moving the last move in a suffocated mate, all you need to have left (except your King of course)  is one Knight, not two.

2) K + 2N vs K is a draw with best play, but if there is additional stuff like one or several pawns that limit the Ks mobility or prevent a stalemate, then a mate might be possible depending on the position.

3) This is really basic endgame knowledge, noone with a NM title should be asking this.

Checkmate cannot be forced with two knights...Although checkmate is possible if there is poor play.

You can be a master if you don't know this. these positions barely come on boards (besides Hans vs. Vignesh). we're all learning stuff ... except u

Snail28 wrote:

notmtwain wrote:

UltimateCrusher2 wrote:

Is it possible to checkmate with two knights if the opponent plays perfectly? If so, how is it possible?

This is a joke, right? You are supposed to be a master. You cannot be a master if you do not know this.

You can be a master if you don't know this. these positions barely come on boards (besides Hans vs. Vignesh). we're all learning stuff ... except u

You are right that it is a very uncommon endgame and of course it is theoretically possible that someone could achieve a master's rating without knowing it but mating with two knights and a pawn is just such a common topic in any book of endgame instruction (and why you can't do it with just the two knights) that it seems hard to believe that anyone achieving a 2200 rating in OTB play could possibly have done so without encountering it multiple times.

I insert an short analysis of a position which started with 2 Knights and Pawns against Rook and Pawns.

http://schachunterricht.net/2015/09/14/tanz-der-springer/

What is the percentage of masters who know how to mate with bishop + knight? It has _never_ happened in an OTB game of mine.

All, when the teacher, tutor, professor or master asks question to his/her student, does it mean he/she does not know the answer to the question? I suggest to not pre-judge the person who asks for asnwers because he maybe is just trying how you answer. Then your answer will describe your personality .... :)

Maybe its a generational thing.  How many older NMs have never looked at a book on endings such as Dvoretsky's famous book?  Because pretty much anyone that has looked at a thorough book is likely to know the answer, even if they are far below master strength.  

In today's internet age, are more people making NM without ever cracking open a book such Dvoretsky's treatise?

I am of an age that I was interested when the tablebases started to come out solving ending questions.  And I own Dvoretsky's book.  So even if I could never actually pull the complex mates off, I do know whats possible.  

Okay, here's the truth. I never looked thoroughly at one endgame book and I still made it up to 2200. Unlike what you people say, it's not that important. The chance of you encountering a situation like this is EXTREMELY unlikely unless both sides get into it on purpose, which, of course, would be against the rules.

Yeah guys I hope you realize that even after having played tens of thousands of chess games, most people have never had this endgame occur. And some of those players might be masters, GMs, or total patzers. It doesn't matter much.

thank you

I've never played a K+N+N vs K endgame in "real life", but I have drawn two OTB games that I should have lost by trading down to K+B+N vs K and counting moves -- only a player who knows exactly how to mate with B+N is likely to do it in less than 50 moves.  I wouldn't expect this to work against a master-level player.

I still need to know how to mate with a bishop & knight. its still eh lol

aint nobody got time for dat but fr doe

Yes, it is a very uncommon endgame to actually have on the board, but knowing which endgames are won and which ones are drawn should play a role when making concrete tactical decisions on trading down.

And just knowing that K+2N vs K is theoretically drawn takes less than 5 seconds to learn, aquiring that tiny bit of knowledge is totally different from learning how to actually win K+N+B in under 50 moves, which is quite difficult to do unless learned well.

So I'm not sure where that comparison comes from.

Maybe chess federations give out a NM title just for crossing a specific rating barrier, and grats to you for being talented enough to make that. 

But imho that does not mean you should not aspire to have a good theoretical knowledge about the game you claim to be some kind of "master" in.

Several beginners have asked me which is the minimum amount of material to be able to force a win in an endgame, and I would have been embarrassed not to be able to answer that at least theoretically, and I'm nowhere near any master title and never will be. Now imagine them asking a supposed master about that...

You should have more pride than that.

Somewhere out there is a NM who is studying endgames deeply right now, and you will have to compete with him or her for further advancement into the ranks of players who actually can earn good money with their chess skills. If you want to call yourself a master of anything, there really is no excuse for being lazy.