Is it possible to checkmate with two knights?

I don't mean any offense, but I find it funny to see someone rated 1258 in blitz (after well over 1,000 games!) trying to call out an NM on chess knowledge. 

The NM might not have known about the objective evaluation of an extremely obscure endgame that may never occur in his/her life. Too bad.

The NM does know about things that actually matter, like how to play openings and middlegames and probably a hell of a lot of tactics.

So if you want to spend your time working out endings that will never happen, instead of focusing on the tactics, middlegames, and openings that will actually be relevant in your chess career, then so be it! But this is why one of the aforementioned players is a NM and the other is a Class D player.

Just my $0.02

What a fool. As IM Silman says, B+N v. K is extremely rare. He himself has never done it, and in fact, it has occoured under 1000 times in chess. If my sources are wrong, I'm not to blame.

Um... what? What does $0.02 have to do with chess WHATSOEVER?? Otherwise, well said! 

^Never head the phrase "just my two cents"?

Yes.

No offense taken norman, I'm well aware that I'm a patzer and I'm actually happy where I'm at with my chess knowledge.

And once again, I never said he should have been working out the ending himself. All I was expecting him to know is that K+2N vs K is a theoretical draw. It takes less than 5 seconds to learn that. Go on and keep telling me how he could have spent those 5 seconds so very much more productive.

It usually comes up when comparing the two minor pieces and their relative worth.

For me a "master" is someone who has a very high level of ability and well grounded knowledge in a subject matter. I'd expect a master artisan to have a good grasp on the theory of his art, and I'd expect a master violinist to have a good knowledge of the theory behind music.

Maybe in todays age of mediocrity we simply do not share the same opinion on when someone should be called a "master" at something. This thread certainly made me reevaluate my opinion on the worth of the NM title. As a patzer myself, I simply expected someone with that title to have all the chess knowledge that I as a patzer consider to be trivial myself, and then some. 

I certainly did not expect lame excuses being made up for why it's not that imortant to be really competent in a field of knowledge to have the right to be called a "master".

Reading comprehension seems to be hard to come by these days. Nice Strawman argument you made there. Because I never talked about him having to be able to perform B+N v. K I said he should know that 2N v. K is a theoretical draw. Takes less than 5 seconds to learn that information.

But I guess it's easier calling others a fool than actually reading and understanding what they said, eh ?

He/she is "really competent in a field of knowledge". The two knights endgame is about as obscure as it gets, and basically completely irrelevant. 

It would be like if I said I was a renowned expert in skydiving and parachuting, and someone told me that I wasn't such an expert because I wasn't formerly aware of some obscure law in Florida preventing unmarried women from parachuting on Sundays (which does, in fact, exist).

If a person claimed to be an expert on the topic, but didn't know about this one ridiculously obscure law, I would still believe that he or she was an expert (provided that the person demonstrated high knowledge of the topic).

It's a tiny, minor, technical thing that doesn't matter one bit. It never happens, probably never will happen, and probably won't even come that close to happening in any of your real games (or the master's, for that matter).

But I suppose what you consider to be a master is up to you. 

I like how this argumentative essay back and forth isn't helping the forum's purpose at all LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

@Sahil that's just how we roll on these forums, it seems.

Snail28 wrote: I like how this argumentative essay back and forth isn't helping the forum's purpose at all LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

You're so right. It's almost as useless as trying to checkmate a lone king with just two knights and a king.

N+N+K v K is drawn and really easy.  All the defending side has to do is make sure he is not mated on the next move.  

In general, the attacking side must have at least five point in an pawnless endgame to at least have winning chances.

Interesting to note, N+N+K vs K+P can actually be winning for the two Knights, as the two knights side can actually use the pawn to reset the 50 move rule and prevent the defender from using the stalemate defense.  For more, please check out the wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_knights_endgame

 Minimum material to mate: 

It's a relevant question. I saw a video on chess.com or maybe an article about GMs knowing the laws of chess. Two WGMs were in the last seconds of the game and it was something like  King  + 2knights versus king. One claimed a draw because of insufficient material the other the win and proving the win is possible. It is possible with the king in the corner boxed in by king + knight and the other knight delivers mate but the opponent pretty much has to help you to achieve that position but when moves are being played in 0.5 sec anything is possible. 

I agree that K+N+N vs K and K+B+N vs K are very rare endgames, but the maneuvers that the attacker and defender use in either of these endgames are useful in endgames where all pawns and pieces other than these are blocked or in mutual zugzwang, and the objective is to drive the king to a particular area of the board so that other pieces or pawns can take part in the attack.  Studying these endgames is one way to learn these maneuvers, but not necessarily the only way.

It's called the Hungarian mate.. I think. But K-N-N can Force a win again K-P

the king cannot be alone. or else you can never give check mate unless your opponent just wants to get mated.

Oh and for the record. in one of my tournament games I had B+N vs K maybe it is very uncommon. but my opponent exchanged the pieces so that it would be B+N vs K. He tried to claim a draw and pretty much said I couldn't mate him because No One studies B+N vs King. He was half right, I figured out how to checkmate that day. lol.

Well done, B+N vs K. is really difficult to develop yourself on the board in a tournament situation.

I took a quick look at the W-system way back in the day, but never really studied it well. From what I remember though, I doubt I could do it in under 50 moves in a tournament situation.

I would, however know enough to try and trade down in a way to give my opponent K+2N to prevent a loss if possible :)

My bad, the game was K+N versus K+N and the WGM would have drawn if she didn't know how to mate in this position. 
https://youtu.be/jr86xZcJAaM?t=2m22s
https://www.chess.com/article/view/do-chess-arbiters-know-the-rules-of-chess

No. And, I think it should be embarrassing to be a master and not know this.

I mean, maybe if you're one of those 10 year old masters and you don't know much in general it's ok.