9219 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
phmilet
I've been reading Pachman's classic "Modern Chess Strategy", and stumbled upon this position (diagram 26 @ page 25):
Pachman says that the black bishop is superior to the white knight, since we have an open position and mobile pawns on both wings. White has, though, all the other advantages - and extra tempo and a nicely placed knight.
I've tried to work this position out - both with my teacher and with my computer, but it looks like it's a draw. Can anyone find a win? (or at least a winning idea?) Thanks.
Nytik
Is it definitely white to move? If so, I agree that this is almost certainly a draw (unless it's one of those irritating studies! ). Perhaps it was a printing error and it's actually black to move... in which case, something like 1... a5 would probably be a good start.
It's white to move. I think Pachman meant to say "well even though white has everything going for him in the short run, the knight is still inferior to the bishop in this position". He makes his point, since white appears to have no winning chances at any point; but also appears to draw without much trouble.
richie_and_oprah
Pachman states the the Black player managed to win from the diagramed position.
He does not claim a forced win.
What he does state is:
" ...the bishop is superior. It needs only an additional small advantage, such as a Mobile King, to disturb the balance sufficiently for the win."
This is a great book, but you really need to study it. It is nuanced and not always direct, but it is all there. It has dense information in the notes that needs to be unpacked and really studied. Posting this diagram and having a good discussion is good example as to how to go about unpacking the and understanding the subtleties of chess.
Aggressive Response to 4...Nf6 in the Scotch
by AnthonyCG 3 minutes ago
Live Game with Commentating!
by ChristianSoldier007 3 minutes ago
3/31/2012 - Bill Melvin v Robert Cunningham
by 06-jwagg 4 minutes ago
Database?
by iused 6 minutes ago
Super inexpensive coaching
by VladBGhita 7 minutes ago
Wht Bobby Fischer would have beaten Kasparov.
by echecs06 10 minutes ago
HoS Zukertort and Marshall review
by NajdorfDefense 10 minutes ago
5/25/2012 - Reshevsky-Ivanovic, Skopje 1976
by boulderlaw 16 minutes ago
Vote chess improvements
by Bubatz 18 minutes ago
The deadly opening traps
by Angelfirefly 19 minutes ago