Ok. We've all seen many, many, many threads asking whether bishops or knights are stronger. In all of these threads, someone or multiple someones point out the well-established fact that their relative values depend upon the position at hand.
This will be the B-v-N thread to end all B-v-N threads.*
You are about to play a game of a new chess variant. It's called Minor Piece Peace Chess, in anticipation that no longer will dispute be made over which is the minor minor piece.
The rules of the variant are as follows:
1) Before learning who your opponent will be, what color you will play, and how your opponent answers The Question, you must decide on your answer to The Question.
2) You will be required to remove, before the game starts, either both your knights or both your bishops; so that you have on your back rank either bishops at the c and f files and empty squares at b and g, or knights at b and g and empty squares at c and f.
3) The Question (referred to in rule 1) is: will you keep your bishops or your knights?
4) Otherwise MPPC plays like normal chess.
So, would you keep your bishops or your knights? Why?
* I'm not so naive as to think this is actually true.
Though it is tempting to speed castling by choosing knights (for example, White could play 1. Nf3 and 2. O-O), nevertheless I'll keep my bishops.
If my opponent keeps his knights, I can trade center pawns, even at the risk of easing central tension, in order to secure an open position. If he keeps his bishops, I am able to oppose him on diagonals. Good diagonals can often be controlled from within your own camp, but good knight outposts usually must be won. In short, I think the types of position in which bishops are more powerful are more frequent, especially if one player is (or both players are) intent on opening the center.
Originally posted by paultopiaWell put. One of the best defensive measures to take if you have, for example, weak light squares is to trade off your opponent's light-square bishop.
I'd keep the bishops for the sole reason that the long diagonals would otherwise be horribly weak and I wouldn't like to have to deal with the b/g/2/7 squares without bishops, especially if my opponent did have 'em.
Originally posted by huntingbearI forgot to mention that flexmore always had a great way of answering this type of question. To paraphrase him:
Ok. We've all seen many, many, many threads asking whether bishops or knights are stronger. In all of these threads, someone or multiple someones point out the well-established fact that their relative values depend upon the position at hand.
When my opponent is better than me, his bishops are better than my knights, and his knights are better than my bishops.
When I am better than my opponent, my bishops are better than his knights, and my knights are better than his bishops.
🙂
Originally posted by druidraviBy repeating, do you mean your answer to both questions, "which?" and "why?", is the same?
2 bishops!! ..2 bishops!! 😀
If so, that's a good answer to the why part. You'll never need to worry about your opponent having the Bishop Pair!
On the other hand, if you keep your knights you'll never have to worry about a Bad Bishop. Unless you're playing David Tebb 😉
EDIT: I define the advantage, the Bishop Pair, as having two bishops against an opponent's two knights, or bishop and knight.
Originally posted by druidraviWell, in Minor Piece Peace Chess, players may make whatever legal moves they wish. So closed positions are possible.
I hereby decree that only open games to be played 🙂
no closed positions I repeat no closed positions.The bishop pair vs 2 knights in open positions aaahhh....😛
Originally posted by huntingbearI don't think they can be forced though. with judicious pawn advances, a player can always leave his opponent with the choice of pawn exchanges or cramping...
Well, in Minor Piece Peace Chess, players may make whatever legal moves they wish. So closed positions are possible.
Originally posted by huntingbearWell how about removing the central pawns d ,e on both sides no deadlocked center implies no closed positions😉🙂.
Well, in Minor Piece Peace Chess, players may make whatever legal moves they wish. So closed positions are possible.
A variant to give the bishop player max advantage.You might instead keep 2 extra pawns d3,e3 white d6,e6 black along with the pawns at d2,e2,d7,e7 to give max chance of closed positions a knight advantage variant.
Originally posted by paultopiaWell put. One advantage of the bishop piece over the knight is that it is easier to force an open center than to force a closed one.
I don't think they can be forced though. with judicious pawn advances, a player can always leave his opponent with the choice of pawn exchanges or cramping...
Originally posted by druidraviHmmn. These are interesting variants, but the rules of MPPC are settled. The purpose of my variant is to level the playing field in the Bishop -vs- Knight dilemma.
Well how about removing the central pawns d ,e on both sides no deadlocked center implies no closed positions😉🙂.
A variant to give the bishop player max advantage.You might instead keep 2 extra pawns d3,e3 white d6,e6 black along with the pawns at d2,e2,d7,e7 to give max chance of closed positions a knight advantage variant.