The Bishop Pair Advantage

Imagining that the pieces have stable values which are written in stone is an oversimplification of chess. One of the ways to become a better player is to develop a more subtle understanding of the relative values of the pieces. 

Often a piece gains or loses value depending on the remaining material on the board. For instance, a queen and knight work well together, so in that case, the knight might be worth more than usual. A rook becomes more important when it's your last heavy piece - i.e. you are down an exchange or have two minor pieces against a rook. In that case, you want to avoid having your last rook exchanged since then you won't be able to compete with your opponent on the ranks and files. 

The same is true about bishops. A bishop gains in value when its partner is still on the board since their actions complement each other. This is the reason for the famous "bishop pair advantage." 

But how does one decide if two bishops are a real advantage? And how do you evaluate a position in general - do you look down a checklist, marking off points, and you get points for possessing the bishop pair? 

Here is an example:

In that position, white has a large space advantage, while black's pieces are huddled on the last two ranks. At a first glance, white was better because of their space advantage. 

But how do you exploit the two bishops in a queenless middlegame? The advantage of a bishop over a knight is the ability to move in long distances. To utilize this advantage, the opposing knight (or knights) must be deprived of support points and slowly constricted. To this end, maintaining a fluid pawn structure is very important.

Of course, you don't see such games between top players today, in which one player demonstrates a theorem. Right? 

Wrong. The 2014 Candidates Tournament began with a just as instructive game. The contestants of that game - Viswanathan and Levon Aronian - were two of the most likely challengers for Magnus Carlsen. 

In this game, Anand got off to an incredible start, defeating his rival (who was considered a favorite to win the tournament) in this smooth manner. Of course, Aronian was under no illusions about the assessment of his position. But the point is that - despite advances in theory, new openings, new understandings of dynamics - the players of today are battling with the same tools as were used in 1883 and earlier. Now let's look at Anand's instructive exploitation of his bishop pair.

This game shows Anand's great strengths - a healthy classical style and an excellent exploitation of the advantage. In general, utilizing the two bishops demands a lot of work in stifling counterplay and keeping control, while the side with the knight needs to try to upset the position at all costs. The side with the bishops is trying to maintain order and build up the position slowly, while the knight is trying to create chaos. While in general it is easier to break down than to build up, in positions such as this, truth is on the side of the player with the bishops, even if it takes a strong player to show it.