1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyI understand what you are saying, I am mearly pointing out that a "good bishop" is a chess term meaning that it is on the colour it's pawns are not on. I agree that an activ bishop is benificial.
Yes, but an active Bishop is also a good bishop. Know that there is no one clear definition of a good bishop, nor must one be limited to a specific classification scheme. This is after all a subjective question.
Wow! Quite a lot of posts since I left it.
I really did not want to start an arguement, but what just wondering which scenario do you guys prefer.
The scenario 1 really shocked me too. This was in one of Josh's tutorials in the academy.
I guess it really is all based on the endgame.
But, consider the fact that your opponent's whole pawn structure us based on black squares. Take a look:
Here, let's make it straight and simple... black's king is more or less stuffed, unless he can remove that bishop really quickly. This is because white's bishop is making a check really risky, because the bishop is on the opposite colour of blacks good pawn structure.
What do you think?
Originally posted by aommasterIn this case, White has what is known as an active bishop. It serves a very useful function in that it ties down the Black king and prevents its escape. In addition, it controls the weakened dark squares on the kingside. There is a real risk of a queen or knight penetrating by way of g5 or f6, or on the long diagonal a1-h8.
Wow! Quite a lot of posts since I left it.
I really did not want to start an arguement, but what just wondering which scenario do you guys prefer.
The scenario 1 really shocked me too. This was in one of Josh's tutorials in the academy.
I guess it really is all based on the endgame.
But, consider the fact that your opponent's whole pawn structu ...[text shortened]... e the bishop is on the opposite colour of blacks good pawn structure.
What do you think?
This is why, good bishop and bad bishop can be very closed-minded terms. It is not always so clear as that.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by aommasterGo look at the Benko Gambit opening. Much too tired to going into mass detail but black normally tries trades off his "good" bishop and keep his "bad" bishop on the board. Pieces are only as good as the jobs you can give them thus you an always tell if your bishop is good or bad regardless of pawn chain colour.
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!
Originally posted by BedlamGood point.
Pieces are only as good as the jobs you can give them thus you an always tell if your bishop is good or bad regardless of pawn chain colour.
I remember a middlegame position with a White bishop that could freely roam the board., while Black’s bishop was rather blocked. But a stronger player commented “Black’s bishop is better”. He explained… “White’s bishop is only attacking thin air and I can’t see any potential targets, now or in the future. However, long term I can see the Black bishop attacking White’s weak pawn on c3”. Further analysis proved him right. White’s bishop remained free but redundant for most of the game, while later the Black bishop found a useful role.
