Originally posted by huntingbearYa,didn't think you'd go for it.Drats!
Not in MPP Chess. You'll have to make your own variant.
Incidentally, which knight and bishop would you keep? It would cool to be able to play 1. O-O or 1...O-O 🙂and
Ok,I'll keep my 2 bishops then.
The issue of castling is not of great importance,IMO.Since the opponent either has no knights,either no bishops,the king is much safer in the centre.Check any game where the king got stuck in the centre.I'm pretty sure the attack is always conducted with both knights AND bishops.Defending against just bishops or knights would be a lot easier.
Originally posted by OuermyhteThat was an early version of MPPC, but now the rules are settled. The reason I opted for the established rule is that it more accurately reflects the balance of power on the chessboard. I don't want to force the 4-bishop player to make weakening f- or h-pawn moves in order to complete his development, for example.
how about 4 bishops or 4 knights? that wd b madass crazy game! *drools over power of 4 bishops*
But I agree: four bishops sounds nice.
You'll just have to get the Bishop Quartet the same way as in ordinary chess: underpromotion 🙂
Originally posted by SirLoseALotHypothetically, if you played a variant in which you discarded one knight and one bishop, which knight and which bishop would you keep?
Ya,didn't think you'd go for it.Drats!
Ok,I'll keep my 2 bishops then.
The issue of castling is not of great importance,IMO.Since the opponent either has no knights,either no bishops,the king is much safer in the centre.Check any g ...[text shortened]... .Defending against just bishops or knights would be a lot easier.
Originally posted by huntingbearTough call.I'd say the f1 bishop and the g1 knight.Maybe practise would prove one of the bishops/knights more valuable than the other?It would probably be like current chess theory,a never ending story 🙂
Hypothetically, if you played a variant in which you discarded one knight and one bishop, which knight and which bishop would you keep?
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI'm thinking the same. You want the g1 knight so you can put it on f3, ready to defend your kindside and to attack his. And was it Tarrasch who said he could never find an attacking plan without his king's bishop? As cool as it would be to play 1. O-O, you're probably right that it's not as important with such reduced material from the start.
Tough call.I'd say the f1 bishop and the g1 knight.Maybe practise would prove one of the bishops/knights more valuable than the other?It would probably be like current chess theory,a never ending story 🙂
If I played my usual opening, 1. b4, I would need to retain my c1 bishop, and would probably choose to keep my g1 knight.
Originally posted by huntingbearVeerry Interresting Questtion ...
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 varia ...[text shortened]... eep your bishops or your knights? Why?
* I'm not so naive as to think this is actually true.
Personally, I'm more comfortable with Bishops than with Knights and I would even fancy drawing chances in a R vs. B endgame.
To answer The Question, however, I think I would actually go for the Knights 😲. It is written in The Book:
If it were possible to develop the pieces without the aid of pawn moves, the pawn-less advance would be the correct one (Nimzowitsch, My System, p2.)
With a Knight, I can develop my pieces with virtually no pawn moves (e.g. 1. Nf3, 2.0-0 etc.) Most players (including myself) also tend to have a blind-spot for the Knight Fork. And, unless your opponent is willing to give up a pawn or two, locking the position isn't as hard as it seems.
Fact: The bishop pair is stronger than any other combination of Knights and Bishops...
The real question of Knight vs. Bishop is whether one (1) bishop or one (1) knight is better...
Anyone who does not take the Bishop pair in this MCPP is at a disadvantage. By no means, is that a definitive disadvantage, but certainly at least a slight disadvantage.
Originally posted by GambitzoidOnly one way to test it out ... forum game, anyone?
Fact: The bishop pair is stronger than any other combination of Knights and Bishops...
The real question of Knight vs. Bishop is whether one (1) bishop or one (1) knight is better...
Anyone who does not take the Bishop pair in this MCPP is at a disadvantage. By no means, is that a definitive disadvantage, but certainly at least a slight disadvantage.
You should call this special tournament the "White Knight's Tournament", because white knight players would be the ultimate heroes. Let's face it folks, you are underating the knights. With the bishops, you are required to do 2 pawn moves to get them out, with knights, no pawn moves required, AND you can castle ASAP and develop a rook. Basicly, a white player who goes first, could get his knights out before a black bishop man even gets one bishop into position. This is a huge iniative advantage.
One GM argued that knights are better in the opening and middlegame, and a lone knight always beats a lone bishop (he suggested puting ALL your peices the opposite color of that bishop, a tactic I must admit, works well) and the bishop pair is only useful at an endgame. I'm starting to think he might be right, although the chess world has discarded this theory.
So for those who think the bishops are better, you better plan on keeping them and keeping material even all the way until a long endgame if you plan on seizing the advantage, and you will be defending all the time due to the knight player's early development, so it's not as easy as it sounds.
BTW, 4 bishops vs 4 knights, the 4 bishops win easy, but this is not cannon with chess. Mainly because two bishops on the same color are uber powerful and can form minor peice batteries, I know this, because I accidently did this before in games as a newbie in OTB chess, had some good laughs over it. If a chess player was given a choice beteewn balance (ie: having one bishop on each color) or force (ie: having both bishops on the same color), he should choose force.
Originally posted by mateulosei dont know, having 4 knights dancing around cd b v annoying. dyu wana have a game to test it out?
BTW, 4 bishops vs 4 knights, the 4 bishops win easy, but this is not cannon with chess. Mainly because two bishops on the same color are uber powerful and can form minor peice batteries, I know this, because I accidently did this before in games as a newbie in OTB chess, had some good laughs over it. If a chess player was given a choice beteewn balance (ie ...[text shortened]... hop on each color) or force (ie: having both bishops on the same color), he should choose force.
marcussucrammarcussucrammarcus
I completely disagree...
Two Bishops of different colors are much, much better than same color bishops...
Same color bishops get in each other's way.
It is a well established that in a queen endgame a Q+N+np is better than Q+B+np because the B only gets in the way of the Q while the N complements the Q.
