Knight for a Bishop?

Is this a stupid question? But when your opponent aggressively moves his bishop to take your knight, do you comply and take his bishop with your pawn or do you move your knight out of danger?

Originally posted by Evey Hammond
Is this a stupid question? But when your opponent aggressively moves his bishop to take your knight, do you comply and take his bishop with your pawn or do you move your knight out of danger?

Take the bishop with the pawn obviously!

Why move the knight away when you get his bishop for free?

You typed your question wrong. It's not clear.

Post the position below.

hes probably talking about a bishop anchored to a pawn on the g file so if the enemy takes he gets an open file for his rook.

I think he means "threaten" instead of "take." I think he's asking if you should move your a or h pawn to threaten a bishop that has a knight pinned on c or f.

If that is what you are asking then it depends on the situation. Post an example to get a more in-depth response.

I did mean threaten...my apologies. I have had many an opponent, following my first move with my knight, slide their bishop down to threaten. What I'm wondering is whether it's wise this early in a game, to sacrifice a knight, even though it will result in the capture of a bishop. I wonder whether it might be preferable to move the knight out of danger.

It's all personal preference and how the game is going. If you can move the knight to a better square then do so, but if you think that after he takes and you take back, that your position is better, then do it. Maybe you could post some games so we can give better advice?

Do mean something like this common opening? Usually black will play 3...a6 instead of moving the knight away

White usually retreats but sometimes takes the knight (which I don't mind seeing as black!)

Originally posted by Evey Hammond
I did mean threaten...my apologies. I have had many an opponent, following my first move with my knight, slide their bishop down to threaten. What I'm wondering is whether it's wise this early in a game, to sacrifice a knight, even though it will result in the capture of a bishop. I wonder whether it might be preferable to move the knight out of danger.

This move is very common in openings; something like the ruy lopez, which goes 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 is a good example. For the most part, it is not advisable to move your knight. You should either threaten his bishop with a6 or h6, defend your knights position with a bishop of your own (to prevent doubling up with your pawns), or simply ignore the punk (note: the above example doesn't allow all those responses, it would depend on the opening scenario.

In some cases, the bishop will pin your knight against your king or queen, so you can't move your knight. Interpose with a bishop or wait and retake with a b or g pawn. Also, I don't believe this would be considered a knight sacrifice; in fact, it would be your opponent sacrificing their bishop for a slight positional advantage. Hope this helps.

Originally posted by violinpatrick
Do mean something like this common opening? Usually black will play 3...a6 instead of moving the knight away

White usually retreats but sometimes takes the knight (which I don't mind seeing as black!)

[fen]r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/1B2p3/4P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]

This is exactly the type of scenario of which I'm speaking. Thank you for the tips!

Originally posted by allostery
This move is very common in openings; something like the ruy lopez, which goes 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 is a good example. For the most part, it is not advisable to move your knight. You should either threaten his bishop with a6 or h6, defend your knights position with a bishop of your own (to prevent doubling up with your pawns), or simply ignore the p ...[text shortened]... e your opponent sacrificing their bishop for a slight positional advantage. Hope this helps.

This does help...thanks! But am I misinterpreting what you're saying in that I glean it to mean that losing a knight for bishop is usually preferable?

Originally posted by Evey Hammond
This does help...thanks! But am I misinterpreting what you're saying in that I glean it to mean that losing a knight for bishop is usually preferable?

The short answer: debatable. However, one thing to realize is it isn't really your decision. The sacrifice is your opponents' to make and your decision is how to retake his bishop, or thwart the attack, and respond. That's probably the reason why the move is so popular and effective; its offensive and threatening without a lot of risk.

In the position above, the proper response is 3...a6, which now forces white to make a decision whether to take or back off. Otherwise, white would prefer to just leave his bishop there until he can build a strong attack. Overall, a very even trade if it goes down, but this will depend on your style of play.

Originally posted by Evey Hammond
This does help...thanks! But am I misinterpreting what you're saying in that I glean it to mean that losing a knight for bishop is usually preferable?

it would be a trade of material since a Bishop and Knight are relatively equal in worth, but I think he's trying to say that a Bishop pair is better than a Knight pair, which is true in general but is only a guideline. There are many positions where having knights is better (basically positions with advanced locked pawns.) But 2 Bishops is usually a plus as they work better together than knights (2 Bishops cover both color squares, knights need advanced support points and only 1 piece can occupy a square at any giving time, which can make a knight pair redundant)

Originally posted by allostery
The short answer: debatable. However, one thing to realize is it isn't really your decision. The sacrifice is your opponents' to make and your decision is how to retake his bishop, or thwart the attack, and respond. That's probably the reason why the move is so popular and effective; its offensive and threatening without a lot of risk.

In the positio ...[text shortened]... ack. Overall, a very even trade if it goes down, but this will depend on your style of play.

Thank you!

Originally posted by YUG0slav
it would be a trade of material since a Bishop and Knight are relatively equal in worth, but I think he's trying to say that a Bishop pair is better than a Knight pair, which is true in general but is only a guideline. There are many positions where having knights is better (basically positions with advanced locked pawns.) But 2 Bishops is usually a plus ...[text shortened]... nd only 1 piece can occupy a square at any giving time, which can make a knight pair redundant)

A pair. Interestingly enough, and only when I'm daring, I've found a knight pair can be more effective than a bishop pair. Comments?

I like a knight pair more than a bishop pair but that may just be my opinion, first the knight pair is easier to fork with, and therefore gaining more peices... Yet... The bishops are very threatening, if you get caught with a bishop pair, be careful!