8858 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!
Bishop & Knight exchanges are common in early session of a chess game. Who will gain? The one who loses Knight or the one who loses the Bishop?! Any thoughts?
depends upon the position but bishops usually have a slight edge over Knights. but not to underestimate the power of the knight as they are the kings of closed position they will transform into superhorses! But i like knights as im a closed positional player!
this question can't be answered easily, because value of pieces heavily depends on the position. for example, in endgames Q+N vs Q+B(or even Q+R) with static and closed pawn structure Q+N usually wins. But f.e. a bishop pair is also very strong and often can be more valuable than a pawn
maga if u keep the knight in the middle it can cover 8 squares ,but if u keep the bishop it covers 14 squares ,if it is an open position definitely a pair of bishops give you an advantage
a pawn is more valuable and powerful than a queen in the right position.
Piece value is relative
There is also the consideration of the endgame, where a pair of knights cannot normally give checkmate, yet a pair of bishops or even a bishop + knight can. This is all part of the "depends on the position" concept though.
Your first post raises the question of an early trade. If the trade changes nothing in the pawn structure then usually its a bad idea to give up a bishop in whats probably an uncommitted position. Your actual title of the thread though makes me think...well if the Bishop cannot logically trade for the knight, does that not give the Knight greater impunity to act, making it in one sense the more powerful? Just a thought.
thanks for fischer's games...
I like my horsies but teh bishops are supposed to be one RCH strongar.
In blocked positions, knights are better, in open the bishops.
But in average, bishops are slightly better.
Learning to identify inferior/superior pieces both in YOUR army and your opponents army, and manipulating the development of the board to accomodate to your strengths (or your opponents weaknesses) is detrimental to your success in any given position.
For example, If you see that you have the chance of closing up the position in a few moves, and your opponents most active piece is a bishop, why not take advantage of that information? The Bishop is utterly useless if the center of the board is in a grid lock, therefore making your knights VASTLY superior to your opponents Bishop. That being said, it would be foolish to trade your knights away in this situation, because the knights meneuverability is hardly effected in a closed position.
The notion that Knights have a value of 3 points, and Bishops have a value of 3.25 (or whatever) is absolutely ridiculous, because the value varies from position to position. There isn't a "one rule fits all" when it comes to the value of pieces, because every game is different. Passed pawns can be worth as much as Queens in many situations. I think it gives people a very poor framework on which to base their assumptions about chess; that there is one rule, set in stone forever and ever.
The great chess players learned by experimentation.
With a little bit of creativity, the information I just provided can be leveraged into infinity. It will improve your game dramatically. Trading your pieces at random and without purpose is a terrible way to open a game... whether the position is closed or open.
It is one thing knowing that the knight is marginally inferior to the bishop, contingent on position. For most of us, we are amateurs and their strengths relatively are reflected in our ability to use them properly. I struggled with knights for years, not how to move them but how to best maneuver them and think about where they wanted to be - then I did a knight's tour for the first time and the practising of it developed my play with that piece till for quite a while after it my play with it was far better than my play with the bishop. I'd like to think I am better with the bishop now but there is one last thing I would point out - someone (cant remember who) said "One bishop = half a bishop, two bishops = three bishops". Certainly a saying that got me thinking for a while.
thanks for the tip!!
"One bishop = half a bishop, two bishops = three bishops"
I like my knights better, in blitz. Hop hop fork, hop hop fork X-D
As a beginning player, I think that knights are the more useful piece, but I tend to notice that with advanced players the way they can maneuver their bishops can be absolutely devestating.
depends on postion in a closed game knights are better because the can jump over pieces in open games bishops are better because they cover a lot of the board.
Tough question! Depends on the situation i guess.
Solve this Riddle if you can
by ivandh a few minutes ago
5/20/2013 - Mate in 3
by senormouse2001 a few minutes ago
Premium subscription trials/giveaways?
by WeekendWarrior11 6 minutes ago
Making a plan and sticking with it
by tntain 7 minutes ago
by VLMJ 11 minutes ago
by blasterdragon 11 minutes ago
5,000 Signs You Don't Know Enough About Chess
by BEOGRADSKI_SINDIKAT 14 minutes ago
why do people stall when they are losing?
by piotozz 14 minutes ago
Post/Annotate a puzzle u think is the best sac. for a Mate, NOW!!!(why is it?)
by ViktorHNielsen 15 minutes ago
chess.tv not archiving videos
by romanic666 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com