Recently saw the discussions about Bobby Fischer liking bishops better than knights, especially the light squared.
Sure, you can say "depends on what situation". Heck, a horse can even be better than a queen "depending on the situation". We have to overcome that mental block and admit generally, bishops are chessically significantly better. Now the light squared idea. Suggestions?
Originally posted by BillyVoltaireStupid comments guys. Tarrasch (I hope I'm not mixing the name up...) had a preference for knights over bishops. I don't think it's fair to say that one is objectively better than the other. As we know, knights are better in closed positions and bishops in open.
Lighted square - f7, I suppose. If he is talking about playing as white.
BV
the strength of the Bishop and Knight (or ANY piece for that matter) is completely dependent on the situation. the whole pawns worth idea (Bish and Knight are 3, Rook is 5, etc...) is just a guideline for evaluating a piece's general strength and to make little idiots understand that stuff like (this being an example) 1. h4 d5 2. Rh3 Bxh3 3. Nxh3 is crap for white
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7I suspect that he likes the light squared Bishop because it controls f7 and h7, which are important for attacking and defending Black's Kingside. Since Black moves second, he needs to think defense, while White is thinking offense, and in both cases Black's kingside is significant.
Recently saw the discussions about Bobby Fischer liking bishops better than knights, especially the light squared.
Sure, you can say "depends on what situation". Heck, a horse can even be better than a queen "depending on the situation". We have to overcome that mental block and admit generally, bishops are chessically significantly better. Now the light squared idea. Suggestions?
An interesting note is that most engines will rate a bishop significantly higher than a knight. The reason for this is that most good engines are programmed to try and force open positions (which plays into their tactical advantages). One reason that bishops can objectively be said to be more valuable than knights is that it is often possible to force a closed position open but it can be very hard or even impossible to close a lot of open positions. It is also possible that the light squared bishop is more valuable than the dark because chess is not perfectly symmetrical (I haven't put a lot of thought into this but the f7/h7 argument makes sense). Remember that we are talking about this in general, of course specific positions are different but averaged across hundreds of thousands of games I would agree bishops are more valuable, i could even be convinced the light squared bishop is most valuable (for white)
I've always felt that the real strenght of the bishop lie in having the bishop pair. For instance in this game
Game 2628975
We were even material wise for most of the game, but on the open board with just a little work, my bishops overwhelmed his knights.