Why You Should Learn the 3 Knights Basic Checkmate

Here is one of the puzzles that I got here:

Casually forgetting about 2 knight+king vs pawn+king

There are no basic endgames with underpromoted pieces. "Basic" implies practical and underpromotions are too rare to be practical for a game player to study. Problemists might enjoy studying them though because they are not basic and therefore interesting.

I believe "basic" means minimum possible material, though I might be wrong. A ladder checkmate is not considered basic by this definition.

The puzzle above came from chess.com puzzles, which come from actual games, so this means there are situations in practice where this is useful.

It means commonly needed 

Like,you can see ladder checkmate everyday,but how many games have you seen with 3 knights?

Pretty rarely in actual standard games, maybe less than 1 in a million (the material imbalance is weird; even 2 knights is very rare and probably less common than bishop + knight which occurs 1/6000 of the time). It might have been of use in this game.

KNNN vs. K is not basic, it is a simpler form of the 5th basic checkmate KNN vs. KP.

I agree that it should be considered the fifth basic checkmate. However, as pointed out, the last sentence is not accurate, since there are some special positions with a forcible mate with only two knights, as well as there was some with only one knight, and some with only one bishop.

The first sentence is an opinion based on some understanding of the word "basic". The other sentences are simply untrue. These checkmates are impossible unless material for the opponent is added - like all smothered mates are mates by 1 knight only. That is clearly outside the scope of @riverwalk3 's inventory. Note: 2 knights can never checkmate the king by themselves unless the opponent blunders into a "checkmate in 1 move".

3 knights is a fun forced checkmate, but in the original position I wonder what if black did not recapture the knight and instead started giving white random checks with the queen. White is probably still winning, but who knows it may be harder to force than the 3 knights vs the lone king, especially if low on time or whatever (BTW everyone I had closed my account on my own accord a couple years ago but became interested in playing chess more frequently again so I requested the site reopen it and they did).

Still a simple win according to Syzygy. Black can never pick up the rook with the queen during the checks as the knight promotion continues to lay in wait for that happening.

True, but still, I'd probably take the 3 knights vs lone king instead of queen vs 3 pieces given the choice. If black managed to get the pawn, he could then sack his queen for the rook since 2 knights can't force mate, but yes, very low chance of that happening.

The thing is that there is nothing to learn about it. No trick is required, you just have 3 knights and you checkmate. Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

Well even 3 knights are still knights. The only piece you can "triangulate" with is the king, so it can still be tricky. I actually have had easier times winning with knight + bishop against Stockfish after setting up a random position to practice with, than 3 knights.

You misunderstood what the guy said. You should try again.

sorry mate my bad but it's not necessary to learn it imo