This question comes down to two things: the game position, and your play style. If the trade gives you an advantagous position, do it. If your bishop is or will be closed off, go for it. However, if the trade gives neither you nor your oppenent a major change in position, you should try and judge your own style of playing against your opponent's (kind of hard to do in the early game). If it seems your oppenent values his knights highly and you won't make very good use of your bishop, do the trade.
That said, I would probably avoid the situation. Double bishops in the endgame are vicious 😛
Originally posted by Prophetic NewbGood post 🙂
This question comes down to two things: the game position, and your play style. If the trade gives you an advantagous position, do it. If your bishop is or will be closed off, go for it. However, if the trade gives neither you nor your oppenent a major change in position, you should try and judge your own style of playing against your opponent's (kind ...[text shortened]...
That said, I would probably avoid the situation. Double bishops in the endgame are vicious 😛
Originally posted by Prophetic Newbyes, in MOST cases, the Bishop pair is better than the Knight pair. 2 bishops control both colored squares and have long range capabilities. Knights are short range pieces that require advanced support points to reach their full potential. In the instance that only one good outpost exists, the knight pair becomes a bit redundant, as only one piece can be placed on a single square. Of course, it is no rule that 2 bishops are better than 2 knights, as there are certain positions (almost always very closed positions with deadlocked pawns) where the knights dominate the 2 bishops.
This question comes down to two things: the game position, and your play style. If the trade gives you an advantagous position, do it. If your bishop is or will be closed off, go for it. However, if the trade gives neither you nor your oppenent a major change in position, you should try and judge your own style of playing against your opponent's (kind ...[text shortened]...
That said, I would probably avoid the situation. Double bishops in the endgame are vicious 😛
a Bishop + Knights also tends to beat 2 Knights. The Knights have the same problem as stated before, while the Knight + Bishop can compliment each other with their short range + long range combination.
if you have a biased view on the minor pieces and adore either bishops or knights and always trade to get your preferred piece, your play will suffer.
Originally posted by damonbossI don't even understand how that could "seem" like a good move at all
Anyone else sacrifice their bishops for knights at most available opportunities?
I do, seems to be a good move, just wondering if anyone else does?
d
you seem like the kind of guy who waits for their opponent to play (assuming you're black here) Nc3 or Nf3 so that you can play Bb4 and Bg4, immediately following up with Bxc3 and Bxf3. This is flawed logic, please don't do this.
my suggestion for you is to order this now:
http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/recommended_chess_books/How+to+Reassess+Your+Chess%3A+The+Complete+Chess-Mastery+Course
Originally posted by YUG0slavHa ha, ok good advice. I'm on it.😀
I don't even understand how that could "seem" like a good move at all
you seem like the kind of guy who waits for their opponent to play (assuming you're black here) Nc3 or Nf3 so that you can play Bb4 and Bg4, immediately following up with Bxc3 and Bxf3. This is flawed logic, please don't do this.
my suggestion for you is to order this now:
http: ...[text shortened]... ess/recommended_chess_books/How+to+Reassess+Your+Chess%3A+The+Complete+Chess-Mastery+Course
