22 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI would agree that many chess players overrates bishops, but in my opinion you are overrating knights. In open positions (especially with pawns in both flanks) even single bishop usually are stronger than knight as in closed position 2 knights may be stronger that 2 bishops.
I was thinking to myself, lots of players seem to love the bishop over the knight but I believe that the knight is a far move versatile piece, capable of beating the bishop at least 2/3 of the time.
I admit, a bishop is a very handy long range attacker in the middlegame and can cause enemy rooks a headache when they start teaming up, but in the e ...[text shortened]... tinct weakness.
What do people think of this? Are they any good or should we bash the bishop?
So I would rate these pieces as about equal - in open positions stronger is bishop, but knight is stronger in closed ones.
22 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschexnevermind 😞
I was thinking to myself, lots of players seem to love the bishop over the knight but I believe that the knight is a far move versatile piece, capable of beating the bishop at least 2/3 of the time.
I admit, a bishop is a very handy long range attacker in the middlegame and can cause enemy rooks a headache when they start teaming up, but in the e ...[text shortened]... tinct weakness.
What do people think of this? Are they any good or should we bash the bishop?
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerA socratic seminar is not a debate. It is a discussion meant to reach a rather conclusive idea on a difficult subject. It used to be held with groups of 2-3. Now, it is held with classes. Basically, a socratic seminar is prepared for: There is a question, and attendants prepare notes for discussion, and then the seminar occurs - and everyone participates. It is not a debate because rather than arguing separate points, it is more of a sharing of ideas.
I have a B. A. in philosophy, and I've never heard of a "Socratic Seminar." I know about Socrates, and I know about the "Socratic Method", but I don't know exactly (or inexactly) what a "Socratic Seminiar" is.
On the case of this topic; I would say the knight is more efficient with a "crowded" board but bishops are helpful with open boards. I'd say the two pieces are generally equal in the endgame?
23 Oct 07
Originally posted by Ramnedare you commenting or questioning or are you just unsure about that statement?
A socratic seminar is not a debate. It is a discussion meant to reach a rather conclusive idea on a difficult subject. It used to be held with groups of 2-3. Now, it is held with classes. Basically, a socratic seminar is prepared for: There is a question, and attendants prepare notes for discussion, and then the seminar occurs - and everyone participates. It ...[text shortened]... e helpful with open boards. I'd say the two pieces are generally equal in the endgame?
23 Oct 07
Originally posted by tomtom232I am commenting and am fairly sure that bishop = knight. (I do know what a seminar is if that's what you meant.)
are you commenting or questioning or are you just unsure about that statement?
But one question I do have: Are 2 bishops usually better than a B + N?
23 Oct 07
Originally posted by Ramnedits just that the part I put in italics ended with a question mark. Yes the bishop pair is better than bishop and knight this is demonstrated in how much easier it is to mate a lone king with the two bishops than it is to do it with the bishop + knight.
I am commenting and am fairly sure that bishop = knight. (I do know what a seminar is if that's what you meant.)
But one question I do have: Are 2 bishops usually better than a B + N?
23 Oct 07
I had a great game in real life tonight where I beat a player very soundly with my knight vs his bishop - he had offered two draws up to that point under the impression that the knight was just as weak as the bishop and neither of us couldmake any progrss, that was until his pawns started coming off. Although, with the correct play he probably could have got something earlier.
23 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschexhere is a game where the weakenesses of the bishop pair are exposed even in an open position with pawns on both sides
I had a great game in real life tonight where I beat a player very soundly with my knight vs his bishop - he had offered two draws up to that point under the impression that the knight was just as weak as the bishop and neither of us couldmake any progrss, that was until his pawns started coming off. Although, with the correct play he probably could have got something earlier.
Game 2349879
Edit: the rooks had some influence I'll admit.
23 Oct 07
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI'm surprised that a player of your high rating would feel this way. Go back and play over some endings by Steinitz or Fischer.
I was thinking to myself, lots of players seem to love the bishop over the knight but I believe that the knight is a far move versatile piece, capable of beating the bishop at least 2/3 of the time.
I admit, a bishop is a very handy long range attacker in the middlegame and can cause enemy rooks a headache when they start teaming up, but in the e ...[text shortened]... tinct weakness.
What do people think of this? Are they any good or should we bash the bishop?
03 Nov 07
Originally posted by KorchI would like to add that it really matters what color one's pawns are when evaluating how good a lone bishop is. Here is a game where it is clear that black's black squared bishop is a very weak piece in comparison with white's knight, and once the rooks are off the board the difference is losing. However reversing the color of the bishop leads to a winning advantage for black.
I would agree that many chess players overrates bishops, but in my opinion you are overrating knights. In open positions (especially with pawns in both flanks) even single bishop usually are stronger than knight as in closed position 2 knights may be stronger that 2 bishops.
So I would rate these pieces as about equal - in open positions stronger is bishop, but knight is stronger in closed ones.
03 Nov 07
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexCome on - it was only 2 min game 😀
I lost a blitz game to Korch earlier tonight where I had a bishop against his knight - and I even had a position where, due to doubled pawns, I was effectively a pawn up.
As I said at the time, these damn bishops just dont work for me.
03 Nov 07
In endgame i would like to have bishop more then a knight. Because in endgame usually most of the chess pieces are gone, bishops have a open way to move and work very well with pawns, unlike the knight, which is i feel better in middle game, as it can jump through the crowd and cause threats 😉
Lolette