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

all the worse for diplomacy XD 

The tablebases do not claim a win, but rather a "cursed win".

With best play (which of course requirtes no pawn move or capture for 50 moves), this is a draw according to the current FIDE laws of chess. And with best play White needs more than 50 moves before being able to move his pawn.

There is no 50 move rule under current FIDE basic rules.

Nalimov doesn't do "cursed wins"; he just claims mate in 127.

It is a draw under competition rules (unless it's rapid play).

Not anything under ICCF rules. You never get there.

I can win KBN+K

Not if you're +K.

He was an official ambassador for Cuba in Russia, timed to coincide with a chess tournament. He did have some diplomatic responsibilities, but his primary role was social.

hi

#124
Havana 1913 appeared in English in British Chess Magazine Quarterly 18, 1976.

Capablanca also was the ambassador of Cuba in Belgium and in France. He was a Jew himself and he issued many visa to Cuba allowing Jews to flee Europe during the Second World War.

Capablanca was a diplomat, but he was not always diplomatic.
From his early years:
"As one by one I mowed them down, my superiority soon became apparent"
Later he became more modest. His "Chess Fundamentals" includes nearly all his lost games.

And this conversation at Moscow 1936:
Stalin: “How do you like my tournament?
Capablanca: “It’s terrible; your players are cheating.”
Stalin: “What do you mean?”
Capablanca: “When they play against each other, the Soviets make quick draws and they get to rest. When they play against me, they fight on and on just to make me tired.”

Back on topic: KBN vs. K is no advanced technique.
If a beginner cannot checkmate a lone king, then how will he checkmate a king defended?
KBN vs. K requires foresight and that is essential in all of chess.
KBN vs. K teaches coordination of pieces. That is necessary in many endgames, e.g. RB, QN etc.
KBN vs. K also shows the superiority of the bishop over the knight and thus makes beginners careful not to play BxN without good reason.
Coach: 'a bishop is worth more than a knight.'
Student: 'I like the knight better than the bishop.'
Some exercise KBB vs. K, KBN vs. K, KNN vs. KP makes this clear.

Capablanca a Jew?

Source?

#127
You may be right. Capablanca no longer figures on the list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_chess_players
Alekhine even praised Capablanca for his victory over the Jew Lasker.
https://de.chessbase.com/post/ueber-aljechins-juedisches-und-arisches-schach 
The parents of Capablanca were Spanish and I somewhere read they were sephardic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Jews 
Source for the part about the visa:
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablancaolga.html 

I would go for the win, on the basis of nothing to lose. The worst that could happen is I blunder a draw, a win would be unlikely, but possible. Secondly, the practise would help.

And I don't think they had penicillin in those days.

i practiced on endgame trainer until i could solve all 5 challenges in under a minute. 🥷

“One fake quote deserves another.”

Giulio Cesare Polerio

The name is pukka. I assume the quote isn't.

That's the method I learned.

I would have to ask "where did my king go?" It was here a minute ago, now it's gone.

With just a knight and bishop against a lone king I would probably agree to a draw. I couldn't pull off a checkmate without my king.

Without your king he's going to have HUGE problems checkmating you. But you're right - you couldn't checkmate no matter how hard he blunders. Wonder how the USCF rules overlooked that material.