27 Jan 09
bishops are better long range pieces and if their diagonal is open their dangerous, especially if you have a bishop pair. but knights are tricky they have forking capablities and i find knight moves are often missed by amutures. but most GM's perfer bishops over knights.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by ArrakCorrect... I might add that Knights are more useful in closed positions, such as interlocked pawn formations, while bishops are more useful with fewer pieces on the board where there superior mobility can be used. 😏
bishops are better long range pieces and if their diagonal is open their dangerous, especially if you have a bishop pair. but knights are tricky they have forking capablities and i find knight moves are often missed by amutures. but most GM's perfer bishops over knights.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by odoodsdudesDo you know something about Steinetz ideas about Knights ?
i'm comming across players who will swap bishop for knight no problem . what do you think ?
Knights (being a low range pieces) are as good as you make them. Which means, you have to create for them advance outposts in enemy camp. The strentgh of knight depends on the nature of the position (open / closed) but also depends on which rank they are. Securely posted knight on fifth or sixth rank can often be stronger than your rook 😲
But for our level, yeah, it is easier to obtain a bishop pair in wide open position and slice everything.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by odoodsdudesThere's nothing wrong with trading a bishop for a knight if you get positional compensation, such as forcing the opponent to double pawns, as is very common in many openings.
i'm comming across players who will swap bishop for knight no problem . what do you think ?
However, all else being equal, having 2 bishops is better than having a bishop and a knight and can even, in some cases, be as good as having a rook and a minor piece.
One bishop vs. one knight though is very close to even and which is better depends a lot on the position.