8408 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!
mayebe youre a bad "rider" .... ah, ah, know what i mean???:D
Dude i could write you a million reasons why your reasoning is absurd. Give me 2 knights, 6 pawns a rook and a queen and i will win your 6p, 2B, 1Q, 1R easy, just because you wont understand what to do:) Even your material is slighty stronger...
If you want one of the million reasons - knights can go back, pawns cant. And knight value is from 3 to 2.6 depending on a master who analizes. Theres a lot of books about it... Also for my knights ppl sacrifice rooks...:)
Um... that's NOT what I meant. Knight can go backwards, sure, but the fact that pawns can eventually turn into queens compensates for their weakness.
By the way, you wouldn't take a heavily defended knight with a rook, nor would you take a heavily defended pawn, because they rarely pose a threat to me should my opponent possess one.
However, you sometimes need to sacrifice your rook for a heavily protected bishop, because it might be a big tactical or positional threat, or assisting in a checkmate. That, I can comprehend.
Of course you would take a heavily defended knight with a rook. These kind of exchange sacrifices are very common. Tigran Petrosian made a specialy of them. Everybody knows that a powerfully placed knight, particularly a knight on the 6th rank, can be more valuable that a rook
Now, I know the prominency of the knight can be taken advantage of only in certain conditions, such as a closed game. I'm just used to playing with bishops.
All I did was talk about how the knight how the knight can be worse than a bishop or the same as a pawn. I meant no insult to any of the players on this site. I just wanted your opinion on the matter, not to make a big fuss over it.
wel saying a knight is like a pawn in any nature is just false ou cant compare the two at all
Bishops are only good in the open games, in closed games bad bishops don't do much more than pawns so it's quite equal
Well, two pawns can trap a knight in a corner, and three on the side. I think that was how the value of the pieces are determined. Therefore (I rephrase), a knight might have the value of two or three pawns.
You may call me insane and such, but I think there is a correlation between the value of the pieces and the number of pawns required to trap that piece. I will make a seperate forum on the matter.
Vulpus, you did not ask for opinions. You declared that knights are overvalued, as if that is common knowledge. If you can't find the power in a good knight, it is your loss.
For instance, consider the popular Nimzo-Indian defense, a defense used at all rating levels. Why would black give up one of his bishops for a supposedly measly knight?
For the record, when sacrificing, I usually victimise bishops :-))
The question of knights versus bishops has been debated for a couple of centuries without a firm conclusion. GM Larry Kaufman did a massive study of many thousands of master games and concluded that the two pieces were about equal in value, but that the two bishops (versus two knoghts or a knight and bishop) constitued a real plus.
It's certainly true that advanced passed pawns can make a fool of the knight, but there are also plenty of positions where a single bishop is useless and helpless against a knight because all the actionj is taking place on the wrong colored squares
Where does a horse go poop? Anywhere he wants.
Bishops, they can't touch every square on the board, only half of them. Pathetic.
"Knights are too undervalued"...
Just how undervalued do you think would be appropriate?
THE KNIGHT IS THE MOST IMPOTANT PIECE IN MID GAME STATAGY FOLOWED THE BY THE BISHOP
No, the king is.
Lenny would disagree.
Guys cmon, the most important piece in midgame strategy is the pawns..
So, he's suggesting we should buy a lot of Knights and hold them until the market goes to its natural equilibrium point?
When do we cash in?
The middle game revolves around pawns, but the knight is by far the tickiest piece to look out for
That's what Viagra is for
CAPS LOCK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT KEY ON THE KEYBOARD
What opening is this?
by SwarmOfBees a few minutes ago
We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.
by Bill_C 3 minutes ago
Is it possible that there are psychic chess masters
by December_TwentyNine 3 minutes ago
In how many foreign countries have you already been?
by ucanthandlethetruth 4 minutes ago
The 48-game Match between Stockfish and Houdini
by orangeishblue 6 minutes ago
Rating deflation in Tactics Trainer
by aland420 8 minutes ago
by bbkFroSty 9 minutes ago
Reinstate Domain as Moderator and Helper!
by goldendog 12 minutes ago
The Sicilian as played by Non-Masters
by Expertise87 13 minutes ago
Improve Chess and Intelligence
by aatkins 16 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com