Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    19 Jan '09 20:42
    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 got a big inspiration.

    Chess is so wide area that it takes a lifetime to learn how to control perfectly even single piece.
  2. 19 Jan '09 20:46
    I am reading Pawn Power as we speak.
  3. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    19 Jan '09 20:49
    Originally posted by jeroen1975
    I am reading Pawn Power as we speak.
    I'll beat you with my horsey
  4. 19 Jan '09 20:53
    Originally posted by ivan2908
    I'll beat you with my horsey
    Catch one and his seven brothers will get nasty. Best thing I can still get seven Queens while a Knight will never be more than the most drunk-moving piece on the board.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '09 21:00
    Originally posted by ivan2908
    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.
    I'm no great player, but my answer would be no; or rather, it doesn't make sense to try.

    Each piece in a vacuum is nothing. The pieces are only relevant insofar as they can work with each other. The greatest "knight player" in the World can't mate in most cases without deftly maneuvering the queen, rooks and/or bishops. Even knight forks almost always require setting them up with other pieces unless the opponent blunders, in which case you don't need to be an expert to execute the fork anyway.
  6. 20 Jan '09 02:28
    Would it make sense to start trying to master the rook first? It's a big powerful piece that most people leave in a corner way too long, its common tactical motifs are control of open files and penetration to the 7th rank, and one of the most common endgames is R+p.
  7. Standard member Jie
    20 Jan '09 04:04
    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.
  8. 20 Jan '09 06:52 / 1 edit
    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.
  9. 20 Jan '09 07:23
    Originally posted by Fat Lady
    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.
    I had always heard it was Janowski with the two bishops. They even called the two bishops Jans.
  10. 20 Jan '09 08:20
    Watch out for my KILLER QUEEN. All I need for a good result is a Queen and a bad position.
  11. 20 Jan '09 10:04
    The King is my favourite piece. Without it I'm lost.
  12. 20 Jan '09 14:24
    As mentioned earlier Janowski loved the two bishops, and was very strong with them, although I heard many of the strong players of the day would offer him the two bishops on terms that were quite dismal, and he got into trouble accepting. Chigorin had a fondness for knights, preferring even to go into two knights vs two bishops endgames (which he sometimes won against the worlds best). Korchnoi was famously strong in rook endings. Petrosian of course is famous for sacing the exchange, and then handling the position with the remaining minor pieces brilliantly.

    One of the best examples is Fischer with bishops. During the 70s the understanding of the time was that bishops and knights were about equal, and that it simply depended on the position. Fisher felt that bishops were simply better "The worst bishop is better then the best knight" and he had a number of games that at the time were quite shocking, trading very strong knights for very sad looking bishops, and then going on to pound his opponents to bits. Much of his genius came in playing open positions where the bishops are very strong. Kasprov continues in the same vein, calling bishop for knight "the minor exchange"
  13. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    20 Jan '09 14:31
    Originally posted by Jie
    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.
    That'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.

    Don't neglect the other pieces so they can harmoniusly work together and create knight attack opportunities.

    In addition, you can play openings where knights are better than bishops