Any help on whether a givin bishop is good or bad i dont know the difference.

Bishops only move on one color squares. Each player has one bishop that only moves on the light squares and one that only moves on the dark squares.

If your pawns in the center of the board are fixed on the same color squares as one of your bishops, that really limits the mobility of that bishop, so it's called a bad bishop. If you have a bishop that travels on different squares than the ones where your center pawns are fixed, then that's a good bishop.

When there are few center pawns, or the pawns aren't fixed, the distinction becomes less important. But when you're dealing with closed pawn centers, your bishop can be worthless if it can't get past your own pawns to attack the enemy, so that's when this stuff is very important.

A Bishop is slightly better than a Knight, so don't give up a Bishop for a Knight, maybe a Castle though.

I hope you're kidding here. Bishops vs knight is a long standing debate. The answer is that they're roughly equal with each being superior in different situations.

I don't know where this can go. On one hand we have Fromper, who actually can play chess and knows about chess, and can read with comprehension a poster's question and offer a pertinent response. Then we have rich.

haha

Rich has a tendency not to read the posts after the original, "because reading them would be silly". Look at the thread "Erik owes us yet another apology", and see rich's arguments. You'll get a good laugh.

To add to Fromper's already good explanation...a Bad Bishop could have great mobility, but if it's cut off from where all the action is (e.g. cannot protect an attacked king) then it would be Bad.

Just to really mess your head, sometimes a "bad" bishop (blocked by all its pawns) is "good" in that it supports key pawns that are launching points for attacks.

Hehe...isn't chess fun?

Thanks for the info, would then a dark bishop of mine be considered "bad" if my opponet has his pawns positioned diagonaly on all dark squares?

That's like asking if women are good or bad.

Some women are very good when they are bad!

Two Bishops are better than two Knights even I find it better.

Technically, no. Your bishop would be limited in the scope of its movements if your opponent's pawns attack all or most of the squares that it can move to. But because your own pawns aren't on the dark squares blocking it from moving at all, at least it does have those legal moves, so technically, it's a good bishop. There might even be a situation where it would be advantageous to sacrifice your bishop for a pawn or two to break open a closed pawn center in that situation, which you couldn't do if your bishop was on the light squares with your own pawns and couldn't attack the enemy pawns on the dark squares.

In other words, sometimes it's good to have a bad bishop, and sometimes it's bad to have a good bishop. As with everything in chess, there are exceptions to every rule. But technically speaking, the terms "good bishop" and "bad bishop" only apply to whether your bishop is traveling on the same color squares as your central pawns.

I think you greatly overestimate my playing ability. :p

In general they are good, just don't leave them alone in a room full of quire boys? uh-oh?

My understanding has always been that they are equal... however I personally start my attack with bishops....

for me, a bishop is more valuable in the begining of the game when starting my opening....

at the end of the game I have more success with the Knight.... just from what I have seen, I can get more pawns with the KNIGHT when there are few pieces on the board.... obviously every game is different....

in conclusion.... (for me) start - bishops are more valuable... end - knights are more valuable... reality - ill exchange a bishop for a knight and position as well as exchanging a knight for a bishop and position.... 

Also, with the opponents pieces being on the same color as your bishop, they are potential targets.  So even though your mobility may be restricted for the time being, if the oppourtunity presents itself, a board full of targets for a bishop can be very devastating for your opponent.

perhaps the answer to the bishop or knight debate is this, neither one is really better than the other and the best situation would be to have one knight and one bishop, providing its your "good" bishop.

Many people dont like the french defense because of the "bad bishop" black has to deal with after black plays 1...e6 and 2....d5 .  Every french player knows what a pain this "bad bishop" can be and the primary problem for the black player is often to solve the problem of this bishop. There are lines in the french where white has pawns on e5,d4,f4 and his dark squared bishop is also "bad" with such a pawn structure.  A "bad" bishop can be active or passive , an active one isnt as bad as a passive one .