K+2Ns vs K+p

I know that you will find this in books as a win, but is it usually a forced win from a random position???(like p@h2 k@a2 K@e4 N@g6 N@f3 for example)
Usually in books they just show you the final close to mate where one side gets mated because it can move the pawn...

I think it is usually shown as an example of the deeper mysteries of chess...how a knight cannot mate by itself but give the opponent more force in the shape of a pawn and suddenly the knight can bring about checkmate.

Originally posted by vipiu
I know that you will find this in books as a win, but is it usually a forced win from a random position???(like p@h2 k@a2 K@e4 N@g6 N@f3 for example)
Usually in books they just show you the final close to mate where one side gets mated because it can move the pawn...

No, it isn't a forced win from any random position, just from certain positions.

K+2Ns vs K+p is good for an endgame puzzle but that's when I hit the road. I hate puzzles.

Troitzky made extensive analysis on these type of positions - it is usually a win but not if the pawn is too close to promotion. If I can find somewhere an explicit criterion whether a given position with 2N vs P is won or draw (and I believe I have seen something like this in a book), I'll post it here.

Ok, there is an article in wikipedia on the topic with the links at the bottom being the most useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_knights_endgame#Second_Troitsky_line

nice link, thx...
so as a general rule if the pawn is blocked in his own half of the board usually there is a win in