Yes, position is of course the key here. There are numerous clever analyses of of master games which award points here or there but at our level (depending on position) take what you're best with. Bishop pair is nice, but I do love my knights (vainly hoping none of my current opponents read this).
Originally posted by kenan Which one is better? A pawn that will give a checkmate next move or 3 Queens? 😕
Which is better to have, a chess forum where people can ask reasonable questions, or one where the chess community will ridicule the poster?
As you infer, position is everything and there are no guidelines here. However, consensus at GM level is that a pair of bishops is often better than any other minor piece combination. Bishops often sneak ahead of knights in more open positions where their mobility is greater and two bishops can control both colour squares and cooperate extensively. Likewise in very closed positions with strong pawn chains, knights can have the edge due to their ability to jump and change the colour they control in a single move. Two knights also often cooperate better than knight and bishop for reasons of symmetry. I have to say these are all very sutble differences, so the bottom line is, you have to assess which is best given the game in front of you (ie which minor pieces are 'bad' and which are 'good' - this can be the basis of your decision making when considering exchanges)
I was just thinking of saying that myself. I remembered seeing it happen in a game once - one side was two pawns up but his opponent sacrificed both pieces to force a draw.
Good point - but how many people have actually ever mated anybody using just bishop and knight? Not many I suspect.
I've never actually seen this happen in a competitive game. Mind you I play much more club chess than tournament chess - and the adjudication possibility will limit the number of games that could ever get to B+N mate.
Has anybody ever had B+N+K against K on RHP - successful or otherwise?
Originally posted by Policestate Which is better to have, a chess forum where people can ask reasonable questions, or one where the chess community will ridicule the poster?
As you infer, position is everything and there are no guidelines here. However, consensus at GM level is that a pair of bishops is often better than any other minor piece combination. Bishops often sneak ahead of ...[text shortened]... which are 'good' - this can be the basis of your decision making when considering exchanges)
I apologise. It came across like that.
I only meant to confirm the above poster before me that the values of pieces totally depends on the nature of position.
Nothing more, I did not mean to ridicule but give an extreme example but again I'm sorry.
Originally posted by JonathanB of London Good point - but how many people have actually ever mated anybody using just bishop and knight? Not many I suspect.
I've never actually seen this happen in a competitive game. Mind you I play much more club chess than tournament chess - and the adjudication possibility will limit the number of games that could ever get to B+N mate.
Has anybody ever had B+N+K against K on RHP - successful or otherwise?
Mating with B & N is possible and, provided you know the technique relatively easy. Mating with 2 N is impossible unless your opponent has a P when in certain circumstances it is possible but extremely difficult even for a GM. Anyone doing that here is likely to be using a tablebase whereas that certainly could not be said of a B & N ending.
Of course if there are pawns on the board it depends on the position and whether the B is good or bad. Generally Ns can work better is a Closed position and Bs in an Open one.
15 Feb '08 22:24
Which is better to have? 2 Knights or 1 Knight...
Back to Top