bishops

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.

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