Originally posted by CrocA lot been said already. A few additions
I am sure this a matter of personal preference but i was wondering what you guys think. I am playing a lot of games and seem to be sacrificing knight's for bishop's all the time, but i have found a lot of people do vice versa. I think Knights are good for openings and bishop's are better in latter stages. I have never read a chess book in my life and dont wa ...[text shortened]... ame, but what is most people's preference and why ?
Cheers for the input guys.
King Croc
The value of pieces depends mainly on the fastness such a piece can reach another point.
That is why the queen is so important and Pawns and Kings have little value (except that you shouldn't loose your King).
Bishops and Knights battle n heroic struggle for the favor of the player and it is really hard to tell who wins this struggle. It will differ from game to game.
A Bishop in the middle of the board can reach 14 fields (if there are no obstructions in between); A Knight only 8. (never hindered by obstructions in between) If you put the a Bishop or Knight in a corner it is even worse for the Knight. From there the Knight can reach 2, while the Bishop controls 7 other fields
But when you look at there features after 2 or 3 moves the Knight comes back.. From e4 your Bishop can control max. 32 field. More than 2 moves are not helping the Bishop: 32 is the maximum. Most of the time it will be less. There almost always obstacles. More obstacles (especially your own pieces) means a decreasing value of your Bishop. With many non-removable obstacles you possess a very BAD Bishop.
For the Knight it is a different matter. After 1 move it can reach 8 fields, after 2 moves: 32 positions are possible (equal to the Bishop), but after 3 moves 60 positions are within reach of the Knight. (it is worth to find out which these 4 places are you cannot reach within 3 moves; it will help you to remember these places when you play a game; and you will need less counting and puzzling)
But not only the number of reachable places are important. Also the way how you get to these places are to consider. Bishops can make long flight but can be hindered by all the pieces on the board. Knights jump elegant over the board, but can only control short distances.
Another important difference is the mutual help. A Bishop can very well cooperate with a pawn. They can protect EACHOTHER. No way a Knight and pawn can do that. One can protect the other but not mutually. But Knights are able to protect EACHOTHER, while Bishops are helpless when one is in need of direct protection.
There are many other considerations to look at why sometimes one is more important than the other. It all depends very much on the structure of the game.
There is one more important thing I think. That is your ability to visualize positions. It is for most people much easier to conceive where a Bishop could go after 3 moves than where and how a Knight goes. So when you are good in visualizations a Knight can be a great advantage for you. If you are not good in visualization (what doesn't mean you are a less good player) Bishops can be a better helper for you.
Fjord
A little thought I once had that I'll share for no particular reason.
Bishops (a.k.a. religeous leaders) are the only pieces on the board that never change the colour on which they stand. Could this be interpreted as bishops are dogmatic / obstinate / blinkered etc, or is it just co-incidence... I suspect the latter.
Originally posted by ToeBad bishops can become good bishops. There is always hope.
A little thought I once had that I'll share for no particular reason.
Bishops (a.k.a. religeous leaders) are the only pieces on the board that never change the colour on which they stand. Could this be interpreted as bishops are dogmatic / obstinate / blinkered etc, or is it just co-incidence... I suspect the latter.
Fjord
I think some of it also depends on your playing style. I tend to fairly strongly prefer bishops most of the time, and will usually trade a knight for a bishop with no resevations, and not the other way around (the exception being knocking out the knight on f3 when opponent has castled kingside etc...), but that's only because I tend to play open games, and I also find that my tactical ability, such as it is, tends to fall short of making good use of knights even in closed games, where I often find my knights trapped by enemy pawns or a bishop controlling all its useful squares and looking for some minimally useful sacrifice just so I can get some use out of the damn thing.
your mileage may vary.
Originally posted by saffa73This is incorrect, a mate is a theoretical possibility with a king and two knights vs. a lone king. As Feivel pointed out earlier, you can not force such a mate, but just because a mate can't be forced doesn't mean it is impossible. Suppose the lone king is on h1, and the opposing king is on h3, with one knight on g3 and the other on f3...
It is impossible to mate with K and 2 N vs K.
Originally posted by bbarrI did this in a tournament game last year. I was sweating blood, since my opponent would have queened a pawn on the move after the mate. It is forced after an error has been made; I'll try to find the sequence in the stack of paper on my floor 😕
This is incorrect, a mate is a theoretical possibility with a king and two knights vs. a lone king. As Feivel pointed out earlier, you can not force such a mate, but just because a mate can't be forced doesn't mean it is impossible. Suppose the lone king is on h1, and the opposing king is on h3, with one knight on g3 and the other on f3...
Originally posted by bbarrSupposedly Kotov and Najdorf got into a position where Kotov had two knights against Najdorf's king.
a mate is a theoretical possibility with a king and two knights vs. a lone king. As Feivel pointed out earlier, you can not force such a mate, but just because a mate can't be forced doesn't mean it is impossible...
""Now Kotov maliciously announced that he intended to play on, to
see whether Najdorf might blunder into being mated inside fifty
moves. Najdorf complained wildly to the tournament committee
against the idea of a Grandmaster being subjected to such an
indignity; and finally Kotov agreed to the draw...! (B.H. Wood, The
World Championship Candidates' Tournament, published by
Chess, Sutton Coldfield, England, 1953/54). Another version says
that Kotov informed Najdorf that a Russian chessplayer had found
a way to win this ending. Najdorf was shocked, but then Kotov told
him that he was joking."
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt14.txt
Excuse me? The mate you mention is impossible!
If a King is on h1, and an opposing King is on h3, with Knights on f3 and g3, then the mating move must have been Kt - g3 mate. Correct?
Well, then what was the 'losing ' player's king before it moved to h1?? The King couldn't have been on h1, becasue that's where it is now. It couldn't have been on g1 because the Knight on f3 is attacking that square. And it can't have been on h2 or g2 becasue the King on h3 is attacking those two squares as well!
My point stands. A King and 2 Knights CANNOT ever ever ever mate a lone King.
There are too many references to this on the web. Go and look for yourself.
Originally posted by olphart44You think you might want to read what I posted twice. There must be a MISTAKE. Now show me otherwise by citing a reference if you can. In the meantime I guess Bennett and I will go practice the endgames we know nothing about 🙂
Saffa is correct anyone who knows their end game should know its impossible to mate a player using just two knights. Even though the position is possible it can not be achieved unless that player is really bad.
Feivel the Freethinker
Najdorf was right to protest. Correct play is assumed at that level, particularly in end game. However it is no mean feat to not err for fifty moves in a K v K,N,N , right up to FM level. What do I know? I missed progressing in a swiss by 1/2 a point ( the draw ) in such a situation and an important IM norm. Feivel and bbarr are correct, the win is only achievable with incorrect play from the disadvantaged player.
skeeter
Originally posted by saffa73Just had to pop once more into the forums before going off for the weekend.... should have known that it wouldn't just be a quick check! 😕
Excuse me? The mate you mention is impossible!
If a King is on h1, and an opposing King is on h3, with Knights on f3 and g3, then the mating move must have been Kt - g3 mate. Correct?
Well, then what was the 'losing ' player's king before it moved to h1?? The King couldn't have been on h1, becasue that's where it is now. It couldn't have been on ...[text shortened]... mate a lone King.
There are too many references to this on the web. Go and look for yourself.
The position given by Bbarr is quite reachable - although white would have to practically co-operate in the mate to allow it! To show that this is so, I'll take the position a few moves back, and show you the variation:
The position (Black doing the mating):
White king on f2
Black king on h3
Black knight on a5
Black knight on e5
White's move.
Now the variation: 1.Kg1 Nf3+ 2.Kh1?? Ng3#
The end position is the one Bbarr gave.
And NOW I'm off... 🙂
-Jarno