Originally posted by Mike Ricewith everything else being equal, when there are pawns on two sides of the board, bishop is said to be stronger. when there are just kingside or queenside pawns left, the knight may be more useful.
Is it better,as I think, to have Knights in the end game with the same amount of Bishops. this is because of their flexibility. I take this into consideration when exchanging pieces.
Originally posted by Mike RiceWell, as a general rule, knight is better if all pawns are on the one wing, but if there are black and white pawns on the both sides of the board (all of which having the ambition to queen), knight could prove to be useless (since it is short distance operator.) Also, take in count than while one bishop has a weakness of being stuck on just 32 squares on the board, the bishop pair can be devasting, especially if the position is fairly open.
Is it better,as I think, to have Knights in the end game with the same amount of Bishops. this is because of their flexibility. I take this into consideration when exchanging pieces.
It is impossible to generalize though... but there are certain guidelines in all good chess books 😛
Originally posted by tomtom232Yeah, and Kasparov knight would stop my Queen. Sandbagger 😛
My knights stomped this guys so called invincible bishop pair. 😛
Game 2349879
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232Do not tell to anyone (*whispers*) but I locked up in "🙁" folder 5 losing games. Which will take away from me 120 points when I resign 😲
Hey...the fact that you always win still means that you are a strong player...otherwise you would lose one or two every now and then.
EDIT : Sorry for accidentaly highjacking your thread, mike rice. We will stop now. 😛