Is it possible to checkmate with two knights?

^I don't have any problem with calling the OP a master in spite of not knowing it (for the record, the OP's listed age is 14 on the profile).

It never comes up and is totally irrelevant. And guess what...now he/she knows it! Do you think the OP just became a master now? That one little bit of almost completely useless knowledge is the difference between a NM and not an NM? 

I think the OP deserves to be called a National Master. His/her rating has surpassed 2200 USCF. That's all I need.

I didn't read the whole back and forth. Of course you can be a master and know very little about general chess knowledge (the kind that doesn't make you play better). For example I met a master that didn't know most opening names. E.g. they played the Najdorf often, but didn't know it had a name.

But it's not obscure knowledge at all. I'd say even most beginners know that you can't force mate with two knights. Most club players know two knights vs king + pawn is a win in some cases.

But ok, 14 is pretty young so it all seems reasonable now.

Something I'd call obscure would be certain fortresses like pawnless B+N vs queen, or how to win pawnless two bishops vs knight.

It's obscure in that it never happens and is practically useless knowledge. I guess it's fairly widely known, but I wouldn't say a player who knows this is necessarily stronger than one who doesn't. It doesn't come up.

That's true, you could call it obscure in the sense that it almost never happens.

I think we are losing something here because this endgame is of so little practical value.  If the OP has never cracked open an endgame book, I imagine there is a chance he could screw up the Lucena position, or some other common endgame.  As a master, he probably learned how to handle it from a friend, a coach or what not, but if he has not really spent any time with an endgame book, its at least possible that endgame weakness is costing him what, 100 rating points?

The real issue isnt whether you *can* make master without cracking open an endgame book.  Of course you can, if your strong enough in some other important area, such as tactics.  The real issue is why folks that are good at chess and like chess somewhat wouldnt spend some time with an endings book to grab low hanging fruit rating points.  

The OP's post is suggestive of what I'm calling the real issue because the answer to his post is known to anyone that has spent time flipping through an endgame book to parse what is esoteric and what actually needs to be studied.  We arent talking about how to do it, just whether its doable, which is basically table of contents stuff.    

A more interesting question is whether K+N+N vs K is considered mating material, if the opponent runs out of time.  I would guess yes, because it is possible to checkmate if the defender blunders.

All I'm saying is that it's not an issue. And perhaps all this also demonstrates that this older, textbook-based approach to chess (i.e. reading all the classics, practicing endgames, playing system-based openings to avoid theory, focusing on strategy) is just wrong and outdated. The modern generation of chess prodigies is not founded on book studying, endgame knowledge and positional thinking. Rather, it's about computers, openings, tactics, and raw ability. And if that's the way things are today, then I, for one, don't have any problem with that, or with calling the OP a master of chess. 

For FIDE, it is considered mating material as the rule is if mate is achievable by any series of legal moves. For the USCF, in tourneys that are not also FIDE rated, unless something has changed since the last time I downloaded the rules updates,  it would be considered insufficient material.

For here, it is insufficient.

***TOPIC CLOSED BY MODERATORS***

jk 

This is just silly. Young players (and new players) always have been tactical and it takes some years to develop a positional sense. This is true for almost everyone whether they're prodigies or not (Karpov comes to mind as an exception, at least form stories I've heard). And the "modern generation" of exceptional players wouldn't be exceptional if they didn't know basic endgames. I've seen young GMs blitz out nearly flawless endgame technique. If a prodigy is only a master, they're going to get a lot better really quickly. If they don't know basic endgames then that's one of the things they'll learn.

"Basic endgames" do not include two knights vs king. And I never said they shouldn't know basic endgames. My point is that endgames are not a priority, and people saying that players such as the OP should spend their time reading long endgame books to improve is probably unfounded.

That's like saying pawnless king vs king + bishop is not a basic endgame. I mean, sure, that's right, it's not... it's a non-position and most people know it.

I don't know if I'd call anything a priority, but the basics are always worth extra rating points. This is true whether we're talking about endgames or anything else.

And like ArtNJ said, it's useful just to know the evaluations not even necessarily the proper technique.

Knowing perfect technique for 100-200 basic technical endgames is not that necessary (even for very good players). But knowing the general ideas of what that technique inovlves, and instantly knowing the basic evaluations is useful. For example R+5 vs R+4 is technically a win and there are a few simple patterns involving the winning ideas. I definitely wouldn't have anything near perfect technique, but I'd know how to push and that I "should" win with best play.

Contrast with R+4 vs R+3, which is a draw, and there are some ways to screw it up and lose.

Having a few hundred basic bits of info like that is useful all through the middlegame when deciding whether you can draw a particular ending (when defending a slightly worse position) or whether you can win an endgame (when pushing for a win). And then once you're in the endgame you don't have to work nearly as hard in your analysis, so you save time on the clock too.

smothered mate?

u guys better stop like why

Is that similiar to stopping like whales ?

yuh funy

 If there is a pawn, it's still not a guaranteed win in general, but yes, forced wins do exist.

...but you cannot force it.