This is an interesting question. I typically like to keep the bishop pair if possible, but this thread has got me wondering if this is really a smart strategy at my level of play. I understand that for master level play the strength of the bishop pair is considerably superior to any other pair of minor pieces. And I can certainly see how the bishops gain strength when the pawns start to get eliminated--so that the bishop's long reach can be put to good use.
However, at my level games seem to be decided more by appalling blunders than by good play, and having the knights on the board seems to invite a lot of blunders. For example, I thought I'd lost this game after move 27--thinking that the passed pawn duo would be unstoppable. Game 1365598
If it is true, that it's better for a mediocre player (such as myself) to keep the knights instead of the bishops, then it would also be interesting to know, at what level of play this is no longer true.
Originally posted by amir1Tal also came from a school of thought that knights should never (if it can be helped) move backwards.
Some more food for thought:
the Tal 'The Magician' (I think it was him, or was it another Blitz master?!) once said that in Blitz chess - Knights are better than Bishops (for attack).
Well one thing about bishop vs knight, the lone bishop can
only cover its color while the knight can eventually(!) cover both
colors. in fact changes color every time it moves so in closed or
semi-open games, I think most times the knight is stronger.
Two bishops Vs two knights, usually the bishops are stronger which
is why some people give 7 points to the bishop pair for counting and
only 6 points to the knight pair, but one on one, 3 points for one
bishop and 3 points for one knight.
It all depends on the position, but even in an open position the Knights will often demonstrate more energy than the bishops. It was once thought that they are an advantage on their own, but all of the games I have seen that 'conclusively' demonstrate the worth of the bishop pair involve some other kind of positional advantage as well (better pawns, more space, etc...) One of the best roles for a Knight is in the attack, as it influences both colored squares. When I have a choice of which pieve to sac to open up a kingside, I almost always sac the Bishop.
When considering whether to trade B for N, or vice versa (I'm not talking about pairs here), one thing to think about is whether you still have your Q or not. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, the N operates more smoothly with the Q than does the B. I've found this to be true in most positions, closed or open.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI read that he came from that Russian city on the Baltic (forget it's name right now) where the local rules were that knights could not move backward. And that he tended to forget that rule did not apply when he was a GM.
Tal also came from a school of thought that knights should never (if it can be helped) move backwards.