Strongest players here that don't know basic checkmates

Who's the strongest player here who don't know the queen, rook, 2 bishops, or bishop+knight checkmate? I'm 1515 rapid and just learned the queen checkmate but doesn't know the 2 bishops mate. 

Oh those are easy.

The queen/rook checkmate is, by far, perhaps the most intuitive checkmating pattern, and can readily be learnt by players of all ratings. If a player does not know how to checkmate with a queen and king or rook and king, then they are indubitably doomed for endgame, upon participating against players of similar ratings. After all, if such a player has a magnificent opening repertoire and wonderful middle game tactics and strategy yet doesn't know this checkmate, then they would blatantly have to settle for a draw (or maybe even resignation). As for the bishop and knight checkmate, it is seldom encountered in chess games, but nonetheless, it is worth learning it to enhance your endgame. The 2 bishops checkmate is something that you should definitely consider learning, because albeit it may not been encountered as frequently as the queen and rook, it will pop up from time to time.

Indeed, the essence of chess is mentally stimulate your mind, generally a pleasant experience. Ratings are not to be constantly be obsessed about; they exist to provide a rough estimate of your playing strength. However, they do not very much account for their intended purpose, for I have seen genuinely rated 400 players (in face to face games) playing at the very level of a 2600 rated player. Indeed, my comment may give rise to formidable controversy, and as a further note, they are essentially analogous to the effect that math competitions play in innate mathematical ability. As we know, math competitions are merely indicative of our ability to solve problems in a limited amount of time - with an outside the box thinking approach, indeed, but not much like genuine research mathematics. Research mathematics is far more profound, delving into the intricacies of every single aspect of a given problem or question. For instance, take Shinichi Mochizuki's proof of the abc conjecture. A seemingly simple and somewhat intuitive conjecture, but the proof (I encourage all to search it up, for it will thoroughly give you a sense of what mathematics is really about) is so deep that it would be injustice to describe it in one word. Anyway, I have gone somewhat off topic, unless you can find a way that chess and the proof of the abc conjecture are inextricably connected. Possibly homeomorphisms and isomorphisms, but not necessarily so.

K, N + B vs K is hard. I've know it when I was young, but forgot about it and now I simply can't do it any more. I should be able to win this endgame playing against the computer from the worst possible starting position. Which is, I believe, King, Bishop and knight in the corners and the enemy king in the centre.

Note that perhaps the Putnam math competition and International Math Olympiad are slightly indicative of our mathematical prowess, but additionally it is a testament our ability to work effectively in timed conditions. Needless to say, some IMO medallists are superb in the study of math, the majority of which have gone on to become prolific mathematicians, the most notable of whom is the one and only man of humility Terence Chi Shen Tao. It's all in his name (insert chi squared distribution pun). Anyway, cogito ergo sum.

If dubious, you should probably view the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3EqM17jvOc

Initially, we should rigorously define what you intend to mean by strongest chess player. Do you mean one with the highest USCF ratings, arithmetic mean of bullet, blitz and rapid ratings, competence in tactical awareness or positional thinking strategies? There are a variety of more interpretations, and needless to say, I have suppressed for the sake of getting my message across in a concise manner.

I don't have the reference, but in the last two or three years, I read an article about either a GM or an IM who wasn't able to win a K + B + N vs K endgame.  It's an ending that's overlooked because it doesn't occur very often (I've only played it eight or nine times in the last ten years).  Some endgame books don't include it because the author's consider studying it a waste of time.  Myself, I think it's rather fascinating, and practice it regularly.

Found a reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_and_knight_checkmate

Now I shall explain you this position. As you see the Knight and Bishop together on the same collor one square apart contole many fields The white king is in fact allready trpaed in the h1 corner. The knighty on d3 is also such a position in with the king has no escape.

I(t is not hard to drive the king in the corner from here.

KQ versus KR and KNN vs KP are probably two of the hardest endgames to solve.

I am sure there if a handful of players who does not know basic checkmates. I myself probably do not know some of them.

What is bishop and knight checkmate? I never needed to know, because I hate endgames. Usually I either die before then or my opponent dies before then.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/162639182

Here's one with two bishops.

hey newbie here .. female, 30 y.o, want to know best strategies to checkmate

Apologies for a lack of rigour in my sentences, yes I intended to state 2400 rated players

It is not necessary to learn all the check mates to be a strong player. I never bothered to learn the B and N checkmate yet I have a strong winning percentage vs masters and a 100% winning percentage against   grand masters.

I did testing whether I can checkmate K+B+N vs K in bullet time?

It took me 40 seconds.( no sound in video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cxKyoDEMc

Depends on time, I need approx 3-5 seconds to checkmate KQ vs K and approx 10 secs to checkmate KR vs K.