21 Oct 07
I was thinking to myself, lots of players seem to love the bishop over the knight but I believe that the knight is a far move versatile piece, capable of beating the bishop at least 2/3 of the time.
I admit, a bishop is a very handy long range attacker in the middlegame and can cause enemy rooks a headache when they start teaming up, but in the endgame I feel a single bishops total lack of control over one colour square gives it a distinct weakness.
What do people think of this? Are they any good or should we bash the bishop?
21 Oct 07
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexIt depends I am also better with a knight. A good rule of thumb(wich I am sure you probably know) is that with pawns on both sides in the endgame a bishop is better but with pawns on only one side the knight is better. This happens because when the pawns are on both sides the bishop is able to oversee both sides of the board wich is a great advantage, But the bishop can only be on one color while a knight can go to both colored squares so when the pawns are on only one side the bishop loses the advantage of overseeing both sides because that is usless while the knight is dominating the pawns no matter what color square they are on.
I was thinking to myself, lots of players seem to love the bishop over the knight but I believe that the knight is a far move versatile piece, capable of beating the bishop at least 2/3 of the time.
I admit, a bishop is a very handy long range attacker in the middlegame and can cause enemy rooks a headache when they start teaming up, but in the e ...[text shortened]... tinct weakness.
What do people think of this? Are they any good or should we bash the bishop?
21 Oct 07
When there are pawns on both sides of the board, then the bishop is almost always better than the knight because of its better mobility.
If all of the pawns are on the same side of the board, then the knight is usually better since it can attack squares of either color and the range of the bishop is not as important.
If each side has fewer than six pawns, then there are probably almost no situations in which two knights are better than two bishops.
21 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI think he is talking about one knight vs one bishop.
When there are pawns on both sides of the board, then the bishop is almost always better than the knight because of its better mobility.
If all of the pawns are on the same side of the board, then the knight is usually better since it can attack squares of either color and the range of the bishop is not as important.
If each side has fewer than ...[text shortened]... , then there are probably almost no situations in which two knights are better than two bishops.
21 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI made a thread about this about a year ago but I can't find it.
I was thinking to myself, lots of players seem to love the bishop over the knight but I believe that the knight is a far move versatile piece, capable of beating the bishop at least 2/3 of the time.
I admit, a bishop is a very handy long range attacker in the middlegame and can cause enemy rooks a headache when they start teaming up, but in the e ...[text shortened]... tinct weakness.
What do people think of this? Are they any good or should we bash the bishop?
EDIT: I found it and bumped it.
21 Oct 07
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschexby the way the thread that I bumped is called "socratic seminar" although it didn't turn out to be one.
Yes I was meaning one knight. Even I have to admit two bishops against bishop and knight or knight and knight tend to come out on top.
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by tomtom232I have a B. A. in philosophy, and I've never heard of a "Socratic Seminar." I know about Socrates, and I know about the "Socratic Method", but I don't know exactly (or inexactly) what a "Socratic Seminiar" is.
The problem was that nobody knew what a socratic seminar was.
:'( ðŸ˜
22 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerit is where a group of people ask questions of eachother to get a deeper understanding of a certain subject. Basically it is the socratic method except everyone is playing Socrates.
I have a B. A. in philosophy, and I've never heard of a "Socratic Seminar." I know about Socrates, and I know about the "Socratic Method", but I don't know exactly (or inexactly) what a "Socratic Seminiar" is.
EDIT: An even better way of putting is
Its a seminar using the socratic method
i.e. socratic(method) seminar
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerPerhaps they teach that only in graduate school where you went to school. However, if you take a look at http://www.ncsu.edu/literacyjunction/html/tutorialsocratic.html, you might deduce that the Socratic Seminar is the creation of educators, and that their emphasis upon listening and not interrupting raises questions as to how carefully they have read Plato. When did Socrates ever let someone speak for more than a few sentences before challenging his remarks with a series of either/or questions?
I have a B. A. in philosophy, and I've never heard of a "Socratic Seminar." I know about Socrates, and I know about the "Socratic Method", but I don't know exactly (or inexactly) what a "Socratic Seminiar" is.
The Socratic Seminar originates not in philosophy, but in pedagogy.
22 Oct 07
Originally posted by tomtom232Thank you. Now I get it.
it is where a group of people ask questions of eachother to get a deeper understanding of a certain subject. Basically it is the socratic method except everyone is playing Socrates.
EDIT: An even better way of putting is
Its a seminar using the socratic method
i.e. socratic(method) seminar