Originally posted by ivan2908I'm no great player, but my answer would be no; or rather, it doesn't make sense to try.
Like, you nickname yourself MonsterKnight or KnightMaster and devote 50 % of your tactical chess training to knight move and all kind of forks and combinations that result from forks or fork threats ?
Like, he read topics about knight moves, tactical themes etc.
Now, that would be nasty.
I am reading all Knight chapters at chesstactics.org so I ...[text shortened]... ss is so wide area that it takes a lifetime to learn how to control perfectly even single piece.
Originally posted by Fat LadyI had always heard it was Janowski with the two bishops. They even called the two bishops Jans.
Isaac Kashdan was known for loving to have the two bishops. Of course we are all taught that two bishops are better than two knights or bishop and knight, but apparently he would give himself other weaknesses (e.g. dodgy pawns) in order to obtain them.
Michael Basman is an absolute demon with the knights.
Originally posted by JieThat's true of course. But you can use the fact that the knight move oddly against your opponents, play tons of knight drills until its movements become your second nature, then solve like made combinations involving knight, learn the strategy about knights and generally study knights ad infinitum.
Chess is not about only one piece. Beginners may favour knights due to their forking ability or use Queen sorties but these are easily rebuffed.