Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 16 May '06 17:53
    Hi guys!

    Consider this:
    Which bishop is more useful, scenario 1 or scenario 2?

    Scenario 1 (as suggested by Chessmaster):
    It is more useful to have a bishop that is the same colour as your opponent's pawns, since you have more targets. If you have pawns on that same colour, the bishop is just a waste.

    Scenario 2 (by a teacher that I know):
    It is more useful to have a bishop on the opposite colour of your opponents pawns, since the bishop is able to pass straight through them, making checkmates easily. If the opponent does move his pawns, he ends up ruining his pawn structure, and hence, it is a win-win situation.

    I am really confused on which one is the best alternative, since both make sense. Usually, when I play, I tend to use a bishop knght exchange using my knight. That was, what I have is an opponent with one coloured bishop. My next steps would be to allign masive pawn chains on that same colour, thus makng his bishop totally useless. This is what was suggested in scenario 2.

    Which one, in your opinion, is better, 1 or 2?

    Thanks a lot guys!
  2. 16 May '06 18:30
    Originally posted by aommaster
    Hi guys!

    Consider this:
    Which bishop is more useful, scenario 1 or scenario 2?

    Scenario 1 (as suggested by Chessmaster):
    It is more useful to have a bishop that is the same colour as your opponent's pawns, since you have more targets. If you have pawns on that same colour, the bishop is just a waste.

    Scenario 2 (by a teacher that I know):
    It is ...[text shortened]... uggested in scenario 2.

    Which one, in your opinion, is better, 1 or 2?

    Thanks a lot guys!
    In the endgame, you want your opponents pawns on the same colour as your bishop, and your own pawns on the opposite colour. However, in the middlegame, it is not always so clear. Consider the following position from Capablanca-Bogoljubov, London 1922:




    Here, Black's bishop on h7 is so bad, despite being on the same colour as White's pawns, that he is virtually playing a piece down!
  3. 16 May '06 21:55
    Hey,
    Unless I am wrong, from your own perspective and "not against your opponent," Jeremy Silman has a book which discusses what a good bishop is. However, he tells what it is by using your own pieces. For instance, one point is that a good bishop for you is one that isn't blocked in by your own "center" pawns. The book may be called something like, "How to Reasses Your Chess." But don't quote me on that. If need be, I might be able to find it at a local college library which is where I found it to start with if I am not wrong. Silman doesn't use the opponent's position to determine whether or not your bishop is good. However, try to seek for the longest center diagonal lines you can in the beginning unless the position requires a different use. Remember that if a position requires something different, it will have precedence.
  4. Standard member Yuga
    Renaissance
    16 May '06 22:07
    Originally posted by KingOnPoint
    The book may be called something like, "How to Reasses Your Chess." Silman doesn't use the opponent's position to determine whether or not your bishop is good. However, try to seek for the longest center diagonal lines you can in the beginning unless the position requires a different use. Remember that if a position requires something different, it will have precedence.
    I think you have the title right. I don't have the book on me I believe he used the example above in his book! Good book.

    Generally bishops are better in open positions, knights in closed positions, especially when they have advanced support points. When you strive for an open position, your pawns generally shouldn't be on the same color as the color your bishop is on.
  5. 16 May '06 22:17
    Originally posted by aommaster
    Hi guys!

    Consider this:
    Which bishop is more useful, scenario 1 or scenario 2?

    Scenario 1 (as suggested by Chessmaster):
    It is more useful to have a bishop that is the same colour as your opponent's pawns, since you have more targets. If you have pawns on that same colour, the bishop is just a waste.

    Scenario 2 (by a teacher that I know):
    It is ...[text shortened]... uggested in scenario 2.

    Which one, in your opinion, is better, 1 or 2?

    Thanks a lot guys!
    Here is wisdom: The good bishop is sticking directly up your opponent's king's arse!
  6. 16 May '06 22:26 / 1 edit
    I'm suprised at chessmaster, if your opponent keeps his pawns on the same color your bishop controls, it's hemmed in and restricted.

    A bad bishop, by the way, is one that is impeded by it's own pawns. You want your pawns on the opposite color that your bishop controls.
    A good bishop is not.
    GENERALLY
  7. 16 May '06 22:38
    Originally posted by KingOnPoint
    Hey,
    Unless I am wrong, from your own perspective and "not against your opponent," Jeremy Silman has a book which discusses what a good bishop is. However, he tells what it is by using your own pieces. For instance, one point is that a good bishop for you is one that isn't blocked in by your own "center" pawns. The book may be called something like, "How to Reasses Your Chess."
    You remember correctly. Quote Silman:

    "Bishops can be divided into three groups:

    1) Good
    2) Bad
    3) Active

    A Bishop is considered good when its central pawns are not on its color and thus are not obstructing its activity.
    A Bishop is considered bad when its central pawns are on its color and thus block it.
    An active Bishop can be either bad or good; it's called active simply because it serves an active function."
  8. Standard member EnigmaticCam
    Chess n00b
    16 May '06 22:38
    As already stated, in the middle game it's unclear. It depends entirely on the position.

    But in the end game, it's better to have your opponents pawns on the same color as your bishop, so you have points of attack. There are exceptions though, as with any rule in chess.
  9. 16 May '06 22:46
    Originally posted by EnigmaticCam
    As already stated, in the middle game it's unclear. It depends entirely on the position.

    But in the end game, it's better to have your opponents pawns on the same color as your bishop, so you have points of attack. There are exceptions though, as with any rule in chess.
    I'm sorry, that runs contrary to every book on tactics and strategy I've ever read.
  10. 16 May '06 22:46
    These are bad bishops: Clan 18
  11. 16 May '06 23:07
    Originally posted by General Putzer
    I'm sorry, that runs contrary to every book on tactics and strategy I've ever read.
    What? What game do you play?
  12. 16 May '06 23:44
    Originally posted by Positional Player
    What? What game do you play?
    Compare our ratings and get back to me.
  13. 17 May '06 01:10
    Originally posted by General Putzer
    I'm sorry, that runs contrary to every book on tactics and strategy I've ever read.
    Mr. Putzer, I believe that you are thinking about the middlegame & opening. Then when the pawns impede your bishop, it makes it less active. In the endgame with few pieces/pawns remaining, when the pawns are on the colour of the bishop, they may impede it temporarily. However, often those pawns are locekd on that color, but with a little manuvering, the speedy bishop may get behind/to the base of the pawn chain and wreak havoc.

    It's in any endgame book you open. And if you read Silman carefully, I believe that he backs me up on this.
  14. 17 May '06 01:13
    A good bishop is one which serves an important function effectively.
  15. 17 May '06 01:36
    Originally posted by exigentsky
    A good bishop is one which serves an important function effectively.
    That's an active bishop, see Nordlys' comments above.