- Joined
- 20 Sep 01
- Moves
- 166579
I will give up a Knight for my opponent's Bishop quite happily; my reasoning is that a Bishop is simply a diagonal Rook - a Rook being a valuable piece.
It obviously it depends on the state of play in the game and Knights can be dangerous - many a time I have been caught out.
Before I give away any more thoughts - fellow players' comments would be appreciated.
@Martin
Depends on the position. With a locked pawn structure, one knight tends to be stronger than an opposing bishop, especially if the opponent's pawns are mostly on the same color as his bishop. In an open position, I would much prefer to have a bishop pair, to a knight pair or a bishop and knight.
However, I have occasionally snatched a win from the jaws of defeat with a pair of knights against a bishop and rook in a multi-pawn endgame.
I offer the following example, without commentary (White: moon, Black: Ghost).
@Martin saidOverall I like the bishops better also, with the distance and angles they cover. A queen, knight, and bishop working together can be really nice also. I know a lot of people say a bishop is around half a point better than the knight. Basics, if the center is congested the knights are better, if open the bishops, so naturally the position matters.
I will give up a Knight for my opponent's Bishop quite happily; my reasoning is that a Bishop is simply a diagonal Rook - a Rook being a valuable piece.
It obviously it depends on the state of play in the game and Knights can be dangerous - many a time I have been caught out.
Before I give away any more thoughts - fellow players' comments would be appreciated.
- Joined
- 20 Sep 01
- Moves
- 166579
@mike69 saidAgreed and thank you for taking the time to reply.
Overall I like the bishops better also, with the distance and angles they cover. A queen, knight, and bishop working together can be really nice also. I know a lot of people say a bishop is around half a point better than the knight. Basics, if the center is congested the knights are better, if open the bishops, so naturally the position matters.
Regards
@mike69 saidHowever, in a simplified endgame, with kings, and few pawns all one side of the board, a single knight may sometimes prevail against a single bishop, because the bishop is limited to one color, whereas the knight isn't.
Overall I like the bishops better also, with the distance and angles they cover. A queen, knight, and bishop working together can be really nice also. I know a lot of people say a bishop is around half a point better than the knight. Basics, if the center is congested the knights are better, if open the bishops, so naturally the position matters.
@moonbus saidI don’t mind trading a bad bishop for a strong knight, scenario’s could be set up either way. Which would you say you like better overall when forming your attack?
However, in a simplified endgame, with kings, and few pawns all one side of the board, a single knight may sometimes prevail against a single bishop, because the bishop is limited to one color, whereas the knight isn't.
@mike69 saidI can't generalize about that. Depends on the target and which pieces are defending it.
I don’t mind trading a bad bishop for a strong knight, scenario’s could be set up either way. Which would you say you like better overall when forming your attack?
@moonbus saidIn my opinion knights can be annoying protecting the enemy king and more so when linked together. I think they are stronger when protecting one another but harder to set up out on the open board with both sides developing. The knights and a couple of pawns usually come out first so it seems easier to plan and get the bishops out to better squares or ones that will be open later in the game seeing more board development. Of course they all work better together with the different abilities.
No, but if I know that my opponent does, then I shall try to make the game as uncomfortable for him as possible.
@mike69 saidIn the game wh/ I posted above, White's knights worked effectively in tandem, and once they were posted to f5 and & g5, I considered the game theoretically won for White, although materially White was exchange down. The reasons are apparent by studying the pawn structure:
In my opinion knights can be annoying protecting the enemy king and more so when linked together. I think they are stronger when protecting one another but harder to set up out on the open board with both sides developing. The knights and a couple of pawns usually come out first so it seems easier to plan and get the bishops out to better squares or ones that will be open lat ...[text shortened]... eeing more board development. Of course they all work better together with the different abilities.
1. all of Black's pawns are on white squares, his bishop is dark--so, theoretically, Black should have even control of both colors. But, actually, if you look at the static position at White's 31st move, the reverse is true: the Black bishop has effectively only one square on the entire board where it is not threatened by one of White's knights or a White pawn, namely c5, and from there it threatens nothing. There is no target or even potential target for Black's bishop. With the Black bishop on f8, its only safe haven, it blocks the Black rook from coming out.
2. there is only one open file, and the Black rook can't get there, so White is effectively playing with two knights against a bishop.
3. Black is hampered by weak pawns at f7 & h5; the loss of either one of which would give White a passer. Therefore, Black must commit his pieces to the defence of these two pawns, and cannot mount a counter-attack.
4. the four Black pawns on the Q-side cannot break through the three White pawns, in any configuration of advances and exchanges--not without the assistance of a piece, anyway, and Black's pieces are all committed to defending the f7 and h5 pawns, so White can simply ignore all Black pawn moves on the Q-side.
Now all this was no accident. I played an opening to achieve just this sort of set-up, to remove Black's QN at the earliest opportunity and double his QB pawns; I avoided pawn exchanges, and did not castle, keeping the K in the center and planning to advance up the center to support White's K-side pawn majority at some opportune moment. Black obligingly traded off his well-posted N for my bad bishop, which eased my task--and the loss of the exchange did not materially affect the outcome, as White's two Ns were dominant in the closed pawn structure.
Remove two pawns, Black's h5 and White's h4, and the game is an easy win for Black: 31. ... Rh2+, the R mops up the Q-side.