It really depends on the situation.
But whatever you decided, make sure you nurture your advantage. If you have 2 bishops after he trades, then open up the position since the bishops will dominate. But if he doesn't take your knight and perhaps later on you trade your bishop for his knight, then you will have 1 knight vs 1 bishop for him. Find a good outpost for your knight and try to close the position.
Try to make your minor piece better then his minor piece -> Nurture.
Originally posted by Mad Rookthen read
My guess is that most of that book would be too advanced for him right now.
http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/recommended_chess_books/Play+Winning+Chess
and do a bunch of tactical problems first
but seriously, I can't think of any reason for an ascending player not to get Reassess your Chess
I hate when people force me to double up pawns by pinning and then capturing a knight with a bishop. But, I like my bishops better than my knights anyways so it's not such a bad deal for me. I wonder, though, is it really worth using a turn to interpose with a bishop to avoid doubling up pawns? I mean, that kind of wastes time developing, especially early in the game, which is when this situation often occurs. And also, if the knight is captured by the bishop in a situation like the one posted earlier in the thread, is it better to capture with the queen-pawn to open up the file for the queen, or to capture with the queenside kight-pawn, to try to gain more control of the center? Are there any huge advantages or disadvantages to either?
In general, a pair of bishops is stronger than a pair of knights because 2 bishops complement each other in coverage. Knights are a bit of a loner piece, and definitely do not work efficiently as a pair.
This fact is best shown by the fact that King + 2 bishops VS Lone king can be forced mate in almost every possible arrangement (bishops on opposite colors, of course), whereas King + 2 knights VS Lone king almost always draws (although helpmate is possible.).
Knights, however, have other advantages over bishops, such as mobility in closed positions, lack of color weakness, and a highly effective forking ability.
As such, while bishops have a slight edge over knights overall, both pieces are still moreorless equal, and aspects of the current position, or a particular strategy may point towards exchanging your bishop for a knight as being the best option.
As for positions such as the Ruy Lopez, forcing the issue with a rook-pawn (a6) thrust is generally the most popular response, although there are some alternative responses out there that are probably very sound, many of which may involve ignoring the pin for the time being.
2 other things to bear in mind concern the pawn structure when & if you decide to exchange.
Would exchanging benefit you by forcing a pawn re-take that gives your opponent doubled pawns or a 1/2 open or open file for your rook or queen? This structural weakness can be a game-winner.
Is the pawn structure closed or open & is the possible exchanged bishop good or bad?
If it's closed & especially if you have a bad bishop (ie the light-square bishop & most of your own pawns are on light-squares & are unlikely to move) then almost definately exchange bishop for knight.
If the game is open, or your bishop is active (opposite coloured square than those of your pawns) then generally knights become less important.
I have a very slight preference for bishops, as I always intend to play open games.
Originally posted by allosteryThe accepted answer is 3... a6. Capablanca rarely played such a move and still won. There are playable lines where black doesn't push a6 and instead plays an immediate Nf6.
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 HammondThe reason that I said most of How To Reassess Your Chess would probably be too advanced for you is that Dan Heisman recommends that book for people rated above 1650 USCF (except for the first 52 pages, which are much more basic than the rest of the book's total 400 pages), and I'm guessing that you're not there yet. (Neither am I, I have a long way to go to reach that rating.)
???
Originally posted by Mad RookThanks for clarifying, because at first, I thought you were insulting me. 😉
The reason that I said most of How To Reassess Your Chess would probably be too advanced for you is that Dan Heisman recommends that book for people rated above 1650 USCF (except for the first 52 pages, which are much more basic than the rest of the book's total 400 pages), and I'm guessing that you're not there yet. (Neither am I, I have a long way to go to reach that rating.)