18029 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?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
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!
Which bishop is better? I guess it just depends on the situation but I would like to get your guy's opinions
I wanted to start this topic a few days ago as a parody of the knight vs bishop threads.
Which bishop is better? Light or dark square? I like dark squares as black because the low contrast makes it easy for my opponent to forget it's there. Same reason for white with his light square bishop.
Or some ridiculous comment like that.
Hahaha ok thanks :)
If you were serious then the quickest way to check is by looking at your pawns. Yes each position is unique, but the bishop that's not the on the same color as his friendly pawns has more mobility, and compliments the pawn's because each cover a different color. If you're stuck with a bishop the same color as your pawns then not only is your bishop's mobility hindered, but they are somewhat redundant, covering the same color. Unless other pieces can fill those holes it means the opponent has many potential infiltration / outpost squares inside your position.
To get rid of a "bad" bishop (stuck on same color as pawns) you can activate it (move outside of pawn chain / give it a useful job), trade it off, or move your pawns off that color.
Also, no matter whether you are playing White or Black, your King's Bishop is usually more useful for attacking, since it travels on the same color as f7 and h7 (or f2 and h2)... two classical vulnerable spots in the enemy King's defensive formation.
I don't care as long as they don't put that ridiculous tiny sphere atop their mitres of the opposite color. Why would either of White's Bishops top their hat with a salute to the enemy? Whose side are they on, anyway?
It would be like the Pope putting some satanic symbol on his mitre as a "shout out" to the other team.
Quoting Siegbert Tarrasch:
"As Rousseau could not compose without his cat beside him, so I cannot play chess without my king's bishop. In its absence the game to me is lifeless and void. The vitalizing factor is missing, and I can devise no plan of attack."
thanks for the input guys! This should really help out putting my bishops to use :)
When I read this topic, I thought of that quote, but I could not remember exactly, or who said it. Thanx :)
http://www.chessquotes.com/ more chess quotes split into categories
by Robert0905 2 minutes ago
How to stop CHRONIC trolls on chess.com
by mcostan 2 minutes ago
Jaenisch Gambit against 1.c4
by Robert0905 3 minutes ago
Magnus left chess forever after losing a bet against his Coach.
by 1LovU 6 minutes ago
Tactics coming from the Scandinavian Defense (B01)
by Robert0905 7 minutes ago
This Site Will Soon Have 13 Million Members !
by bankwire9 10 minutes ago
An Anti-French Defense Query
by Robert0905 10 minutes ago
10/9/2015 - In From Behind
by Mostafa_Abdelmalik 11 minutes ago
Chess Bazaar's New Soviet Set--A Pictorial Review
by 9kick9 17 minutes ago
Why are women not as successful as men in chess?
by watcha 20 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!