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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 03 Oct '06 07:29 / 1 edit
    I just won a game where the concept of bad bishop is well demonstrated.
    The game itself was not good from either part, blunders was made and things would've turnout differently if more time of every individual move would’ve been put.
    However here it is:
    Game 2512597

    The opening 1. e4 e6 could turn into French Defense, but didn't. Instead it went into a chase of his pieces, that turnout to be positional fruitful for me.
    After my move 5. d5 his bishop went bad and was forced to be inactive for the rest of the game.
    After my 11. b4 the queenside pawn structure was fixed and further fixed after the Knight exchange with Ne4+. Both his bishops are stuck and only one with difficulty could be set free. Takes tempi and effort for this.
    The future struggle has to be done at the kingside.
    He missed that his queen was about to be taken and lost it in the move 21.
    At the move 37 I made a check before I protected my queen and so I won a rook of his.
    The game ended when he couldn't save his other rook at move 41 and he resigned.

    Lessons to be learnt:
    Although he had two bishops, one of them he couldn't use, it was closed in by his own pawns. Trade it before it get useless.
    He did a series of rook moves as he had no plan. First get a plan, then move the pieces accordingly.

    I hope I don't give anyone the impression that he is a bad player, because he isn't. He has a rating 350 below mine and he had a bad start, yet he held out for 40+ moves. This in mind he is a good player with a good future. I think with mine 1465 in rating, some moves I could do far better.
  2. 04 Oct '06 15:12
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I just won a game where the concept of bad bishop is well demonstrated.
    The game itself was not good from either part, blunders was made and things would've turnout differently if more time of every individual move would’ve been put.
    However here it is:
    Game 2512597

    The opening 1. e4 e6 could turn into French Defense, but didn't. Instead it we ...[text shortened]... er with a good future. I think with mine 1465 in rating, some moves I could do far better.
    Your showing us a game against a 1100.

    Not only that, your showing a game where black is at a disadvantage from move 3.

    And as if that wasn't enough, you show us a game were a Queen was blundered.


    Who gives a Crap about "badbishops" when your up a Queen?

    ___________
    A plays B -- B loses in 129 moves
    A plays C -- C loses in 16 moves.

    It is wrong to assume that player B is stronger than C - (because he lasted longest)
  3. 04 Oct '06 17:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    Your showing us a game against a 1100.
    Not only that, your showing a game where black is at a disadvantage from move 3.
    And as if that wasn't enough, you show us a game were a Queen was blundered.
    Who gives a Crap about "badbishops" when your up a Queen?
    Oh, this is just a game illustrating the very important concept of 'good bishop vs bad bishop'. (Silman uses a whole chapter in his book about this.)
    It is *not* a game illustrating a very good game of two very good players.
    No no, not at all.

    And, yes, you give a crap. You answered, didn't you? You didn't have to, you know.

    I thought I was rather clear of my intention of this thread.
  4. Standard member Briscoe
    Consigliere
    04 Oct '06 18:08 / 1 edit
    Game 1724612

    this is the only one of my own that I can think of...but I'm sure there are more...

    Notes:
    - The center was jammed by move 10
    - I initiated the piece trade off at move 15
    - He continued the trade off at move 21
    - At move 26 I realized if we traded knights, I would be left with the good bishop
    - He accepted the trade off at move 28, leaving me with a central king, and the good bishop

    the rest is history