Originally posted by RavelloWell, it has been asked and "answered" several times. There is no right answer.
Search threads in this forum,the question has been answered a thousand times..
But, prosoccer, you have the right idea. Bishops are usually considered slightly stronger. However, knights are better in closed positions.
Originally posted by RavelloWell yes, but this is one of those topics that just won't go away.
Search threads in this forum,the question has been answered a thousand times..
As far as which is better; it's what you do with them that counts: compare Game 1060430 and Game 1060443.
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookThe article is well done.
[b]http://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/
2 Knights can mate, but the King already has to be near or in the corner (and the two knights have to be close to the king). Smothered mate may use one knight, and there are games where a knight and a king is sufficient to checkmate the enemy king if it is blockaded by its own piece(s).
Chess is often a game of space. As mentioned, bishops are often more powerful as they sweep the board. However, centralized knights that cannot be chased away by pawns are very powerful and may make it hard for the opposition to coordinate their pieces. A Steinitz knight, that is, a knight at d6 or e6 (for white), d3 or e3 for black, often spells certain doom for the opponent.
Bishops are often fianchettoed and best located on e3 and d3 for white (e6 and d6) for black, where they are less threatened by enemy pieces.
"You thought you could escape it.
You thought that finally it had been dead and buried, and would never see the light of day again..
You thought wrong.
A knight, nimbly leaping over his stationary adversaries in search of an advanced support point.
A lone bishop.....fighting to avenge the death of his opposite-colored brother.
If you read only one thread this holiday season, make sure its........
The Bishop vs. Knight Thread XIV.
This time, it's personal."
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by prosoccerThe new Jan Timman book is right on the topic of knights and bishops. Read it and you will be better chess player.
Which is better? Why? Personally I think bishops because of the range they can cover on the board and that you can mate with two bishops, you can't do that with 2 knights.
Cheers,
Originally posted by RahimKI've been skewered by a bishop an equal number of times.
K+ rook pawn and the wrong bishop vs lone king in the queening corner = draw.
Wouldn't you want a knight in that situation?
Knights are also so cool, think about all the times you got forked with them and lost a piece?
knights are obviously not the fastest piece on the board, and the bishop has an ability to get where it needs to and to sneak, if you will, behind opposing pieces lines, because of its ability to take advantage of one unused square. knights advantages is they are breaching the barrier of everything, they can attack a piece without being attacked themselves by that piece. I dont know how many people agree but i say the knights are one of the (at least top 2, some may have the argument that forking lies where distance lies, as the queen represents, forking people all acrosss the board with ease)best at forking. they also as i said earlier can get over pieces as it jumps rather than slides. the knight is the hardest piece to master i think because of its odd moving ability along with other things. but when you play someone who has his knights mastered, they will run all over you. or gallop. ha ha. anyways. for instance, my uncle is a great chess player who has mastered his knights and he can kill you with them. thats my idea anyways.
-trallphaz