reflection an a few of my games and I have a question.
In game Game 1335373 (which I think opened in an interesting way)
by move 20 I was up the exchange and I saw nothing much balancing that advantage off. I found however, as I was trying to plan my moves, that his bishops were VERY potent weapons. I know (mostly from reading posts here and a few scraps of info on the rest of the internet) that a bishoppair is more powerful than any other two minor pieces. And that they should be close together to be most effective.
And my question(s) is(are):
What is the reason and theory concerning this?
What Is it worth to break up a bishop pair, materialwise? I understand that the position has much to do with this and that there is no absolute
truth in the matter. But in what characterizes a position where they become a factor?
Sorry about the raving. I'm just curious :-)
Originally posted by chasparosThis is a topic I am still trying to understand as well. Here's what I've gathered:
reflection an a few of my games and I have a question.
In game Game 1335373 (which I think opened in an interesting way)
by move 20 I was up the exchange and I saw nothing much balancing that advantage off. I found however, as I was trying to plan my moves, that his bishops were VERY potent weapons. I know (mostly from reading posts here and a few ...[text shortened]... acterizes a position where they become a factor?
Sorry about the raving. I'm just curious :-)
On a wide open board, a Bishop controls more squares than a Knight does. All games open up eventually.
Two Bishops can create a wall which the King cannot cross like a Rook can.
Bishops can move without relinquishing control of a particular square.
Against a Pawn formation, one Bishop can supposedly force Pawn moves which the other one can then attack.
Of course there are lots of minor advantages to the Bishop, like being able to pin, but the Knight has lots of little advantages too.
I fail to see how his Bishops were do devestating. Can you give some examples? I didn't really look deeply into the game.
Having the bishop pair is worth about half a pawn. A bishop and knight are worth roughly the same as you know, however, with one bishop on te board it has the severe limitation of only being able to move on squares of 1 colour. With the two bishops this weakness no longer exists so the combination adds the extra half pawn or so.
This applies mostly in open positions. Have you checked out Jeremy Silman's books, he's really good at explaining this sort of thing. If you want more info on material values check out the article on the following url: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell not devastating as such. I managed to win the game.
...I fail to see how his Bishops were do devestating. Can you give some examples? I didn't really look deeply into the game.
But I found that they were very solid and hard to attack. They seemed to control everything (almost).
Thanks for your points. I hadn't considered most of those. Most certainly not the "wall function" I think I see a little better now.
Originally posted by KnightloreHalf a pawn? surely in an open position it counts as more? It certanily felt as more :-)
Having the bishop pair is worth about half a pawn. A bishop and knight are worth roughly the same as you know, however, with one bishop on te board it has the severe limitation of only being able to move on squares of 1 colour. With the two bishops this weakness no longer exists so the combination adds the extra half pawn or so.
This applies mostly in ...[text shortened]... ing url: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
I will read the article. Thanks.