03 Aug 13
Originally posted by Quiet CrowThe only possible answer I could give you is that generally the bishop of a colour is stronger on its colour squares. e.g the black dark squared bishops is usually more powerful than the black light squared and the white light squared bishop is more important to white than his dark squared bishop.
In general, is it better for black pieces to be in black squares (and white in white), or is the opposite true?
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by Quiet CrowI would say that neither is intrinsically better- it depends on the other factors in the position.
In general, is it better for black pieces to be in black squares (and white in white), or is the opposite true?
An excellent example is in the King's Indian Defense. Superficially, one would think that Black's dark-squared bishop is the more valuable bishop.
However, very often Black's dark-squared bishop is the less valuable bishop, particularly in closed centers such as the Mar del Plata center.
Black would be happy to exchange off his dark-squared bishop in such a center, while at the same time, he could give up any real hope of mounting a kingside attack if his light-squared bishop is traded off early.
The best answer is "It depends".
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by Quiet CrowI think they are much easier to see when they are on their opposite colour squares which is why I choose the "clear water" board for my games on this site.
In general, is it better for black pieces to be in black squares (and white in white), or is the opposite true?
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 27921
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by greenpawn34I was thinking an interesting chess variant would be a cross between chess and minesweeper. You can't see your opponent's pieces directly, but the unoccupied squares next to the pieces show the sum of the values of the pieces. So an empty square adjacent to a queen and a pawn would show 10 (9+1), if there was a knight adjacent as well it would show 13, etc.
It is best to place your white pieces on white squares and your black pieces
on black sqaures. Your opponent will not see them and you can sneak up on him.
Or something like that.
A Q all by itself would be obvious, but when all the pieces were together it would be tricky to deduce where your opponent's pieces were hiding.
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by Quiet CrowI don't think you can make a general statement like that for it would depend on which piece you are referring to and which opening you are using and maybe what stage of the game you are in, etc. There are just too many factors to consider to make such a general statement on that, IMO.
In general, is it better for black pieces to be in black squares (and white in white), or is the opposite true?
The Instructor
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by aquatabbyThat sounds like an interesting idea. But the game is already too complicated for me to master. That might be a challenge for those who like to exercise their brains. However, I have gotten lazy in my old age. I like to make a couple moves, take a nap to rest my brain, make a couple more moves, and take another nap, etc.
I was thinking an interesting chess variant would be a cross between chess and minesweeper. You can't see your opponent's pieces directly, but the unoccupied squares next to the pieces show the sum of the values of the pieces. So an empty square adjacent to a queen and a pawn would show 10 (9+1), if there was a knight adjacent as well it would show 13, etc ...[text shortened]... pieces were together it would be tricky to deduce where your opponent's pieces were hiding.
The Instructor
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by TygertI've always thought that, in part due to the 'third-pawn-in' weakness when a player castles kingside.
The only possible answer I could give you is that generally the [b]bishop of a colour is stronger on its colour squares. e.g the black dark squared bishops is usually more powerful than the black light squared and the white light squared bishop is more important to white than his dark squared bishop.[/b]