29 Dec '05 21:42>
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.
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..
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..
Originally posted by prosoccerhttp://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/
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.
Originally posted by BlueEyedRookThe article is well done.
[b]http://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/
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.
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?