11003 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!
It's all very well to debate the value of this or that and each chess piece has long been given a mathematical value for comparison. But once the game has commenced and you have a complex position this changes drastically. Any sacrifice is good if it works. Sacrifice your queen if it leads to a winning position. Sometimes manipulating the opponent's most effective piece so that it is sidelined or boxed in, making it ineffective -- is as good as winning it. Pawns and even pieces of your opponent can sometimes be manipulated into a position that cramps his position. A sacrifice might be worthwhile to achieve this. Every game is different and the value of a knight, or any piece really depends on its position. Haven't you often looked at the board and wished a piece of yours could vanish because it cramps your intended strategy?
The actual title of the topic should rather be "when the OP is high on something evil".
Excuse me, but your reasoning is totally ridiculous.
Those reasons are perfectly valid.
I just don't find knights as good as people claim it to be. I'm a bishop person, because open positions occur much more frequently than closed positions. In fact, I think knights are poor endgame pieces, as bishops dominate the open board with their long range. In addition, a bishop alone can trap a knight.
I find a bishop to be a positional piece, whilst a knight is a tactical piece. Considering those descriptions, I would almost always select bishops over knights in the opening and the endgame, because the bishop's long range easily contributes to kingside attacks, pawn massacres, and deadly pins and skewers.
Replace the bishop with a knight, and your middlegame and endgame play would be significantly more difficult (in most situations).
I just want people to acknowledge my reasons why I see knights as being on par in value with pawns.
I hope to meet you in some tournaments soon
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.
Just so you know, exchange sacs for knights are much more common than exchange sacs for bishops. In fact off the top of my head I don't know any line that contains a RxB sac but for example RxN is a thematic and common move in some Scicilian and French lines, and played at the highest level.
Wafflemaster. Sorry can't agree. Bishops and knights have different characteristics and I think it is wrong to put one ahead of the other arbitarily. For example two bishops at the end game are a powerful combination. But a lone bishop is deprived of half of the squares on the board. A lone knight is much more desirable than a lone bishop -- to me.
But you don't with what or why...
I wasn't arguing a point, I was giving information... there's nothing to debate because what I said is a fact.
However you seem to misunderstand, I didn't say whether one was more valuable than the other. Any half-serious player understands a piece has no value in a vacuum. It's entirely dependant on the specific position where the piece exists and is evaluated primarily by mobility and threats on either king.
Good point, which I have forgotten to make.
Yes, bishops are much better group attackers than knights, who are better as solo attackers, are. It also depends on the target, but generally, group attackers beat isolated pieces and solo attackers beat scattered pieces.
It is probably due to my playing style that has lead me to think that bishops are better than knights in general.
You can correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, circumstancially), but none of you have any reason to insult my way of reasoning and thinking.
while a single bishop can only reach half the squares on a chessboard, knights have some serious disadvantages as well. In particular, knights can take several moves to go from one side of the board to the other, and also they have the potential to be cornered. In addition, knights can't triangulate like a king or bishop can. For this reason I consider a bishop to be somewhat superior to a knight, even when not part of a bishop pair.
thank you for acknowledging my reasoning, xitvono.
hahaha well you work with what ur comftable with babe ;)
I'm a boy (although I wish I weren't).
Quite so Vulpes.
Don't worry about the insults. I found long ago that all blog threads are infested with guys waiting to pounce with insults on anyone. In real life they are cowards and would never insult you to your face. But on the Internet they are fearless.
Realizing that the relative values of pieces change = good. As you say the loss of a knight can be compensated for by weakening the opponent's king when you can attack.
However generalizing this realization to knights are worth no more than a pawn is flawed reasoning and self-contradictory (otherwise you woudln't have used the idea of compensation).
:o i didnt insult you, and theres nothing wrong if you don't want to be a boy :) That's all good hon.
I'll bet that is a very minority opinion.
It's funny to me that you comfort perceived unjustified insults by grouping those people together and insulting them yourself.
Quite so waffllemaster.
Don't worry about the insults. I found long ago that all threads are infested with guys waiting to pounce with insults on anyone offering constructive criticism. In real life they are hypocrites and would never do that to your face. But on the internet they are fearless.
Either way, it's funny that the profile page and picture suggest a girl, but he's so quick to point out he's a boy.
My brother would always feign female status in games like world of warcraft because it was easier to join groups, make friends, get free items, etc (he said).
Is it true that you should not exchange pieces when your down in material?
by LongIslandMark a few minutes ago
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
by RandyRhoads 2 minutes ago
My swell chess set
by NimzoRoy 3 minutes ago
My debut game
by Svekke 5 minutes ago
by azh2012 6 minutes ago
Only 1 simultaneous game in Live Chess now? Are you kidding me??
by binblaster 6 minutes ago
Scotch Gambit novelty.
by RigasUT 6 minutes ago
Struggling with Chess
by Lagomorph 7 minutes ago
Who is the best chess player of all time?
by squeakyfiddle 7 minutes ago
Would a 2000 ELO player beat Kasparov if he had a piece advantage?
by Truxton777 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com