Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 06 Oct '06 00:30
    any thing you want to say about the differences of bishops and knights or which one is better feel free.
  2. Standard member whirlpool
    absolute beginner
    06 Oct '06 00:36
    How about, if you are rated less than 1800 there is no difference?
  3. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    06 Oct '06 00:36
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    any thing you want to say about the differences of bishops and knights or which one is better feel free.
    What makes this a Socratic seminar?
  4. 06 Oct '06 03:21
    so your saying a 1600 player could not take advantage of having a knight over a bishop? maybe you can't comprehend it yet.
  5. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    06 Oct '06 10:00
    Originally posted by kmac27
    so your saying a 1600 player could not take advantage of having a knight over a bishop? maybe you can't comprehend it yet.
    maybe some can, but in my games even the double bishops are so small advantage that it doesn't seem to matter.
  6. Standard member Spacetime
    Not material
    06 Oct '06 13:48
    Climbs onto soapbox...

    Whether knights are better than bishops depends on the concrete elements of the situation. Some people would always have bishops over knights, but there are times when knights can become heroically powerful. Often knights invade deep into the enemy camp and attack indefensible squares...This causes panic in the enemy camp as pieces scurry around madly trying to stop the horrible knight.

    As players we cannot allow knights to become this powerful! So often times, a bishop's primary role is to prevent this. We can pin the knight, threatening to destroy it before it can invade. Bishops also are excellent at directly stalemating a knight, when placed in front or to the side (so the knights forward advance is covered on both diagonals). Imagine a bishop restraining an enemy knight, while simultaneously exerting influence on the king position and queenside at the same time. The bishop is really starting to shine now.

    Imagine that bishop's disturbing influence on the kingside causes a pawn to advance, opening up a color complex around the king. Let's say you have the 2 bishops and the one who patrols the weakened complex is unopposed. Now the queen and other bishop invade the color complex. This bishop is now extremely powerful, and worked in conjunction with the other bishop, who restrained a knight and at the same time provoked weaknesses. Any knight would love to destroy such a monster bishop.

    This is one example of how the bishops can work together and become more powerful than either one by itself.

    Players of any level can use these kind of ideas and improve their game. The key is to always keep in mind how powerful the enemy's knight can become and how is this to be prevented. Don't just ignore the fact the knight can advance, look at where it can go and what it can attack from that spot...is it worth a bishop to stop this? Maybe, maybe not it just depends...

    Climbs down from soapbox.
  7. 06 Oct '06 14:24
    Climbs onto soapbox...

    Yeah, like he said!

    Climbs down from soapbox...
  8. 06 Oct '06 14:25
    Ahem!!... Allow me to give my humble opinion...

    It is strange that bishops and knights are given similar mathematical value, i.e. 3 points each in reference to a pawn as 1 point. But I think the value of pieces can change substantially depending on the remaining pieces on the board. Generally speaking, in a closed position when there are still many pawns on the board, the knights are better pieces than the bishops because they can jump over pieces. In this sense, they are more mobile. The bishop can't jump over pieces and can get in the way in a cramp position.

    But in an open position where not many pawns are blocking the diagonals, then the bishops are usually stronger since they have longer range, and therefore can attack more squares than the knights.

    Occasionally there are positions where there are some pawns on the board and pieces have been exchanged; and one side is left with a bishop and the other has a knight. In such a case, it usually depends on the colour of the squares the bishop is controlling. If for example the bishop is controlling say the dark squares, and his pawns are also on the dark squares, then that bishop is commonly known as the bad bishop because its movement is hampered by its own pawns. Therefore, in such a case, the enemy's knight can be of higher value than the bishop, i.e. knight is better than bishop.

    Hope that can help a bit. Now I just need to make some practical use of those ideas in my games... hehehehehe. Nah.. just kidding, those are actually important chess principles which have helped me in many of my games.
  9. 06 Oct '06 14:29
    Ummm....just to add a bit, I am at a loss on how this particular thread is connected with a socratic seminar.
  10. Subscriber scoop122
    scoop122
    06 Oct '06 14:45
    i'm no expert..honestly look at my games ..but one big difference surely is that any knight can get to any square on the board whereas to any one bishop half the board is not available
  11. Standard member Spacetime
    Not material
    06 Oct '06 15:18
    Originally posted by ckoh1965
    Ummm....just to add a bit, I am at a loss on how this particular thread is connected with a socratic seminar.
    I have to confess, I don't really know what a Socratic Seminar is...
  12. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    06 Oct '06 15:22
    Originally posted by Spacetime
    I have to confess, I don't really know what a Socratic Seminar is...
    Have you read Plato?
  13. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    06 Oct '06 15:23
    Originally posted by ckoh1965
    Ahem!!... Allow me to give my humble opinion...

    It is strange that bishops and knights are given similar mathematical value, i.e. 3 points each in reference to a pawn as 1 point. But I think the value of pieces can change substantially depending on the remaining pieces on the board. Generally speaking, in a closed position when there are still many pawns ...[text shortened]... dding, those are actually important chess principles which have helped me in many of my games.
    Can you show us a game where a knight was stronger than a bishop?
  14. 06 Oct '06 15:29
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Have you read Plato?
    Yes, I've heard of it. My wife read widely on it when she was pursuing her law degree years ago. Said it could help with her jurisprudence papers. Something about philosopher if I'm not wrong. But what has that got to do with this thread?
  15. 06 Oct '06 15:41
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Can you show us a game where a knight was stronger than a bishop?
    Well, I'm just picking one of my games on here, game ID 2355275. But perhaps this isn't really a good example, because in the end both still had a knight each. But what I'm trying to say is that the bishop in the particular game is a 'bad' bishop because it is blocked in by its own pawns, and therefore of little use. I'll try to find other games (not neccesarily my own game) to illustrate a knight stronger than a bishop.