Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Miss Me, Your Majesty?


  • 6 years ago · Quote · #1

    mrxpibb

    For those of you who think bishops are worth more than knights.

    Enjoy

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #2

    lperfectionistl

    hahaha solid.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #3

    xMenace

    mrxpibb wrote:

    For those of you who think bishops are worth more than knights.


     They are. But two knights beat a lone bishop any day. Your opponent should have resigned long ago Wink

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #4

    mrxpibb

    Stop hating.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #5

    mrxpibb

    So why did you post?

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #6

    mrxpibb

    It's a jovial topic, not really making a statement, just having fun with the fact that my knights were pretty amazing

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #7

    Ray_Brooks

    Great knights, and well played for 1238! Smile

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #8

    mrxpibb

    It's a blitz, in long I'm ~1400, I don't play very many blitzes

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #9

    Sconsc

    WOW 2 pieces are better then one AMAZING

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #10

    Olimar

    two pawns are not better than a queen, unless its a rediculous situation :D

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #11

    Sconsc

    Is that similar to a ridiculous situation? Oh and pawns are not pieces.

    WOW 2 minor pieces are better then one AMAZING! (better?)

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #12

    mrxpibb

    I wasn't really stating that knights were better than bishops, I was saying that as a joke because my knights were amazing.

    I was NOT in any means saying that his bishops...bishop, was an example of that.  No, my knights were just dominant, so much that they were better than two rooks.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #13

    heavyop

    I personally liked how active your knights were and how well you were able to use them effectively and find the gaps in his defenses

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #14

    Sconsc

    And I was just saying your knights were amazing only because your opponent blundered badly and lost a piece.

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #15

    Grandmasta44

    Olimar wrote:

    two pawns are not better than a queen, unless its a rediculous situation :D


     A situation like this ?

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #16

    mrxpibb

    Sconsc wrote:

    And I was just saying your knights were amazing only because your opponent blundered badly and lost a piece.


    Well, I fail to see your argument when my two knights were literally better than both his rooks COMBINED

  • 6 years ago · Quote · #17

    Rael

    It was a cool, well played game Stephen. I love it when you get your knights close to the king and they're able to do nifty maneuvers, cutting around the pawns, checking the king and it's impossible to block them. Some people are being a mite hard on you when it was clearly a win that thrilled you - and rightly so, I bet it felt really great to cut at the enemy king with your calvary like that.

    Some people forget at the end of the day that chess is a blast of a game. They get caught up in this narrow, nasty intensity about it (once upon a time this energy served them such that it increased their ability, so they kept feeding it) but that I think kindof spoils some of the perspective about early fun.

    Make no mistake - just because you're rated around 1200 doesn't mean that you enjoy the game less than the rest of us. Your knights danced and it lead to a win. Good work, Xpibb. It actually reminded me of one of my wins that I'm now itching to post, haha.

    __________________________

    Check out the game of mine that KurtGodden featured in one of his blogs, wherein I execute a mating net with knights. I was rated like 1230 at the time, so this is a while back, but I just went and glanced at it, and it's still fun.

    http://blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/chesscom-brilliancies


Back to Top

Post your reply: