Just finished a game with bishopford (#173314) that I think is most instructional. Bishop vs, knight with pawns on both sides of the board usuallycalls for the side with the knight to close the position, thus limiting the range of the bishop while letting the knight jump over the position at the proper moment. If anyone looks at this game and has any comments I would appreciate any constructive comments. It also ends with an example of zugzwang.I feel its a good example of a few basic chess principals
Originally posted by dfm65Zugzwang, as best as I can describe it is when it is your move, but you would be better off if it was not your move. It is when any move you make will only hurt your game. I will go back to the game I described and come back here and tell you exactly when zugzwang takes place so you can check it out for yourself if you like
Robert, could you pls explain the idea of 'zugzwang'? David
First up: I ain't that good. But looking at the game history, looks like move 30 was critical. White could have left his king defending the left flank and moved his pawns forward on the right. That way he keeps the Black knight tied down. There then comes a time the Black knight needs to stop two White pawns heading to pawn heaven, and he just doesn't have the time. Funnily enough, it can often end up with Black having to make the nasty move. I've played it out a few times from move 30 onwards and White often wins. Shows up my lack of skill that I don't get a constant result, but there you go...