what would you do if you only have bishop and knight?

I meant the book it came from.

That other thread makes a claim that is not true regarding Chess Fundamentals. I suspect the quote is fake.

@tygxc is a strange user to me. I don't want to gang up on him or bully him but... how to say this in a fair way... I often disagree with him, and some of what he says is simply false.

I don't know enough about Capablanca to say either way, so I wont comment on that.

As far I know, the only place Capablanca presents checkmate with bishop and knight is in Part II of A Primer of Chess (1935). At the end of the section, he writes: "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" (111).

This quote appears on page 63 of the newer algebraic edition packaged together with Chess Fundamentals and My Chess Career in Everyman's Capablanca x3.

He does not state that a player should learn this checkmate, which he indicates is "rather laborious", before commencing play.

man sacrificed the king for a material advantage

Happen to me once. My opponent asked for a draw and asked to play it out for a dozen more moves.

Offered the draw afterwards lol.

I did start a thread on this and even watched GM Aman Hambletons’s YouTube video but OTB, I would just take the draw.

That's a little surprising considering how high that rating is. The technique is difficult, but not THAT difficult. That endgame is so rare maybe that has something to do with it. I suppose that makes Capablancas comments even more ridiculous. If even players rated over 2500 can struggle with it, how much hope is there for a beginner?

To say a beginner should master that endgame before playing a game is beyond absurd. It's pretty safe to say about 100% of chess players would give up chess if that were the requirement. 

If that's what he meant, he's a very, very poor communicator. There are probably a lot better ways to convey the importance of endgames than saying a beginner should master the KNB v K endgame before playing a game of chess. 

I agree it's probably a fake quote. That's not a very reasonable thing to say. 

He did not say it. It is a fake quote.

He did say, "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."

This is wrong. You need to read more carefully. The same passage and instruction also appears in Chess Fundamentals.

You are too hard on yourself sometimes. 

That's how I get things right most of the time.

I don't think rating has anything to do how well a player plays basic endgames. Anything beyond KBBK doesn't get worked out over the board; the player needs to have already looked at the endgame. How well a player plays those endgames depends only on how well they've looked at them.

But KBNK should be easily won at correspondence speeds even by someone who hasn't looked at the endgame. I worked out a full theory of how to win from any winning position on the back of a large wodge of pyjama stripe printout over a weekend about 1970.

Grandmasters are quite often too busy learning comprehensive opening lines to look at the basic endgames. It's more effective in improving their ratings. (No use spending too much time on endgames if you never get there.)

"In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middlegame and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame."

~Jose Raul Capablanca

Silman Endgame book didn’t feature bishop and knight checkmate since it is really rare that he said it happened once in his chess career.

I haven’t ever gotten it, but my opponent could have forced it. It was KBK&P versus R&K, so he could have sacked the rook for the pawn and I would have had no idea what to do.

I did that once, but with KBB, and my opponent failed the mate.

It actually haven’t happened to me 

Maybe. Thinking about it, I’m pretty sure KBK+P v K+R is a win for the person with the bishop and knight, so I’d still try my chances that a 1600 can’t mate with B+K.

What part is not true? Is it not true that endings can be studied of their own? Is it not true that knowing certain endings can serve as a guide in the middle game and even the opening?

The Nimzo-Indian Defense, for example, aims to give White an unpleasant middle game with bad bishops and a weak ending with isolated and doubled pawns. IQP positions in the Queen’s Gambit are played with an understanding that the player with the isolani should not rush to exchange pieces. The pawn ending favors the other player.

QK v K is an ending.    😁