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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 15 Feb '08 22:07 / 1 edit
    Which is better to have 2 Knights or 1 Knight and 1 Bishop?

    I am interested to see what other players here think is better to have.

    Does it depend on your personal preference and playing style or is one way deffinately better than the other?
  2. 15 Feb '08 22:24
    Originally posted by Snagproof
    Which is better to have 2 Knights or 1 Knight and 1 Bishop?

    I am interested to see what other players here think is better to have.

    Does it depend on your personal preference and playing style or is one way deffinately better than the other?
    Such generic questions are pretty meaningless in chess. It depends on the position.
  3. 15 Feb '08 22:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Snagproof
    Which is better to have 2 Knights or 1 Knight and 1 Bishop?

    I am interested to see what other players here think is better to have.

    Does it depend on your personal preference and playing style or is one way deffinately better than the other?
    Which one is better? A pawn that will give a checkmate next move or 3 Queens?
  4. Standard member Lukerik
    Stick your hands up
    15 Feb '08 23:03
    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).
  5. 16 Feb '08 13:55
    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)
  6. 16 Feb '08 14:38 / 1 edit
    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.
  7. Standard member JonathanB of London
    Curb Your Enthusiasm
    16 Feb '08 15:04 / 1 edit
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    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?
  8. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    16 Feb '08 15:51
    Originally posted by JonathanB of London
    Has anybody ever had B+N+K against K on RHP - successful or otherwise?
    Game 1121956

    D
  9. 17 Feb '08 05:12
    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.
  10. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    17 Feb '08 05:32
    Originally posted by kenan
    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.
    forgiven!
    *hugs*
  11. 17 Feb '08 10:46
    Originally posted by kenan
    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.
    No problem, I was a bit harsh myself! The example you gave does illustrate the point well
  12. 17 Feb '08 10:53
    usually B+N are a bit better, sometimes 2 ns can disturb each other in ocupping best squares...of course, it depends on position...
  13. 18 Feb '08 10:42
    i would have said two of the same piece will always be stronger, for example, two bishops can occupy the entire black and white diagonal squares....

    personally i would go for two knights, only because i hate playing against knights in a closing game
  14. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    18 Feb '08 10:48 / 1 edit
    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. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    18 Feb '08 11:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Dragon Fire
    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.
    I know you know but still I'll say as someone told me when I posted the same thing.

    MAting with 2 N isn't impossible it can't be forced. If the other side slips up you can mate him without any other material need to be present in the board. So if the guy with 2 NN thinks that there is that possibility let him play on.

    Somehow we are thinking that this thing isn't forced but end up writting can't be made.