Editing Two knights endgame (section)

==History==
The first known composition where two knights win against one pawn is, according to Lafora, by [[Gioachino Greco]] in 1620.<ref>C.R. Lafora (1965). Dos caballos en combate. Madrid: Aguilera, p.39.</ref> In 1780, Chapais did a partial analysis of three positions with the pawn on f4 or h4.<ref>{{Harvcol|Troitsky|2006|p=200}}</ref> In 1851 [[Bernhard Horwitz|Horwitz]] and [[Josef Kling|Kling]] published three positions where the knights win against one pawn and two positions where they win against two pawns.<ref>{{Harvcol|Horwitz|Kling|1986|pp=64–68}}</ref> The analysis by Chapais was revised by Guretsky-Cornitz and others, and it was included by [[Johann Berger]] in ''Theory and Practice of the Endgame'', first published in 1891. However, the analysis by Guretsky-Cornitz was incorrect, and the original analysis by Chapais was, in principle, correct.<ref>{{Harvcol|Troitsky|2006|p=200}}</ref> Troitsky started studying the endgame in the early 20th century and published his extensive analysis in 1937.<ref>{{Harvcol|Mednis|1996|p=43}}</ref> Modern computer analysis found it to be very accurate.<ref>{{Harvcol|Nunn|1995|p=265}}</ref>

Master games with this ending are rare — Troitsky knew of only six when he published his analysis in 1937. In the first four (from c. 1890 to 1913), the weaker side brought about the ending to obtain a [[draw (chess)|draw]] from an opponent who did not know how to win. The first master game with a win was in 1931 when [[Adolf Seitz]] beat [[Eugene Znosko-Borovsky]].<ref>{{Harvcol|Troitsky|2006|pp=197–99}}</ref><ref>[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1151993 Znosko-Borovsky vs. Seitz]</ref>

{{Chess diagram
| tleft
| Horwitz & Kling, 1851

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |pd|  |  |  |  
|  |kl|  |nl|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |kd|  |  |  |  |nl|  

| White to move checkmates in six moves: 1.Ne2 Ka1 2.Nb4 Kb1 (2...d3 3.Nc3 d2 4.Nc2#) 3.Nc2 d3 4.Na3+ Ka1 5.Nc3 d2 6.Nc2#
}}
{{Chess diagram
| tleft
| Horwitz & Kling, 1851

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |nl|  
|  |  |  |  |  |nl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |pd
|  |  |  |  |kl|  |kd|pd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  

| White to move wins by setting up [[Stamma's mate]]: 1.Ngh4+ Kg1 2.Nf3+ Kh1 3.Ke1 Kg2 4.Nxh2!! Kxh2 5.Kf1! Kh1 6.Kf2 Kh2 7.Ne3 Kh1 8.Nf1 h2 9.Ng3# 1-0
}}
{{Chess diagram
| tleft
| [[William Pollock (chess player)|Pollock]] vs. [[Jackson Whipps Showalter|Showalter]], c. 1890

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|pd|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|nl|  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |nl|  |  |  |kd|  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |kl|  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  

| White to move. Pollock refused to continue and [[draw by agreement|agreed to a draw]] six moves later, but White has a winning position.<ref>{{Harvcol|Troitsky|2006|p=197}}</ref>
}}
{{clear}}