"Bad bishop"

  In our training game , a discussion  about "bad bishop" started.Although it was too soon to start talking about , it is not bad to make some things clear.

          "Bad bishop" is a widely used term from many authors, that is actually a myth.The reason it is used so often is to explain some difficult concepts with easy "words" and sell.

         The truth is that there is no bad bishop without bad moves.Saying that a bishop is bad from move 2 or 3 because it is locked inside the pawn structure is very inaccurate.

The next example is very characteristic:

In that game , the very well placed Nb6 proved useless while the very "bad" Bf8 proved very usefull.

     Most authors use the term "bad" bishop to avoid providing  more detailed explanations that need more examples.For someone that publishes a book called "Beat the French" the easy solution is to tell you that Black's bishop is bad but is it?

     Let's compare French defense with Caro Kan.

In French defense advance variation, light squared bishop is "bad".

In Caro Kan the same bishop is "very good".

So why anyone would want to play French defense?

Are they stupid?

No they are not.In fact the bishop is much more of a problem in Caro Kan than it is on French defense.White's very dangerous main line tries to exploit the fact that the bishop is actually exposed at f5.Black has suffered countless defeats because of that bishop.

Let's now see a French defense game.

White's good bishop played 3 times and failed to prove any usefulness while Black's "bad" bishop  played just once , to the only square available, and proved very usefull.

    I don't try to say that French defense is better , I'm trying to say that how you play determines the good and the bad pieces.

One of a few things is going wrong--I don't know which.

It is important that human beings understand one another's terms when conversing, or else they will fail to understand each other, will think they disagree when they don't, and will "talk past" each other. In this case, "bad bishop," as I have been using it, does not mean "useless bishop." It does not mean "permanently useless bishop." It does not mean "bishop that will never do you any good." "Good" and "bad" sound like evaluative terms, but when one speaks of "good" and "bad" bishops, he is only describing a feature of the position. If your central pawns are on the same color as your bishop--and especially if the pawn structure is locked--then your bishop is termed a "bad bishop." You might complain that that's bad terminology, since you will sometimes want to express that structural feature and sometimes want to express the value of the bishop, and I'll be happy to agree with you that it's poorly-chosen terminology. But please understand what is and is not intended by it. It is like saying, "You have doubled pawns." A "bad bishop"--one whose central pawns are on its color (and especially if those pawns are locked)--might serve a useful function in a game (like Gligoric's f8-bishop or Farago's c8-bishop). The f5-bishop in the Caro-Kann example was *not* a "good bishop" in this terminology. It was a bad bishop, since Black's central pawns were on e6 and d5. But it was--or had the potential to be--an active bishop, since it had gotten outside the pawn chain. (The Sveshnikov Sicilian's e7-bishop is a good example of a useful bad bishop. So is the g7-bishop in King's Indian positions like Gligoric's.)

"Good" and "bad" are only used this way with bishops, as far as I know. If you don't like the terminology, we can invent something else ("pawn-blocked" and "pawn-unblocked" come to mind). But it is useful to have *some* way of expressing this, because that blocked-in characteristic becomes more and more important as one approaches the endgame and one should therefore bear it in mind when considering trading into an ending--or simply when deciding whether to trade, say, a strong knight for a blocked-in bishop. In describing other pieces, like knights, "good" and "bad" mean what you seem to have in mind--the evaluative, this-is-a-knight-doing-a-good-job or not, this-is-a-useful-knight or not, sort of sense--I know of no technical feature-of-the-position sense in which "good" and "bad" are used of knights. However, even here I must disagree with you. The Nh8 knight was not a good knight at all. It was a bad knight. But it was not a *permanently* bad knight. Black made it better and better until White was forced to take it off the board. Yes, of course how good or bad a piece is over the course of a game, in this is-it-useful sense, changes from move to move. Of course a knight usually isn't condemned to be a bad (useless) knight forever--although sometimes it is. But just because its being badly-placed can be only temporary doesn't mean that it isn't badly-placed!

Moreover, the fact that you can point to exceptional positions in which more-active bishops get into trouble and to ones in which locked-in bishops serve a useful purpose doesn't somehow establish that a bishop's being locked in isn't a bad thing. It just means that it isn't the only feature of a position that determines what happens in the course of a game or the ultimate fate of that bishop.

It is possible that you just want to keep the terminology simple for beginning students. That would be understandable. In that case, I would, were I you, announce that I was using "good" and "bad" solely in the evaluative sense and not in the feature-of-the-position sense, and that if I wanted to say something about bishops locked in by pawns (or not) I would not call them "bad" (or "good") but would instead call them, say, "locked-in" and "unlocked-in" bishops, or whatever terms you chose for them. That way, we would know what you had in mind. But please be aware that not everyone uses the terms that way, and when someone uses them in the feature-of-the-position sense--the locked-in/not-locked-in sense--then you'll have to understand what they mean by their terms. Otherwise, you and your conversant will be "talking past" each other, and communication will fail.

Very enlightening article!  

Thank you for sharing the Najdorf-Gligoric game; I play this line of KID as white all the time, yet I didn't know until now where it originated -- I do already.

To add a comment on the discussion of the terminology of "bad bishops", usually that term (in my experience) is used when people refer to a bishop that is "blocked inside its own pawn structure, but wants out."  This is where the Najdorf-Gligoric game differs fundamentally, since black's Bf8 was indeed blocked but it didn't want out; its purpose was to stay there and guard the footsteps toward black's defenses -- and in that sense it doesn't meet the expanded definition of "bad bishop"

   I am trying to say that for now we need not to call any bishop "bad" or "good".It's something we will examine later under better circumstances and with better examples.

      It is not the same as when you say "doubled pawns".You don't say "bad pawns" you say "doubled pawns".So the term "bad bishop" although it is referring to specific characteristics of the pawn structure("The Geometry of the position" as Botvinnik calls it) for some  indicates a liability.

     Perfectly normal and reasonable moves like 3.e3(after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6)  make some people(unfortunately a lot) say:

    "I dislike 3 e3 precisely because it at least temporarily locks in the c1-bishop, making it bad." unless "is aiming at a Colle System"

    That phrase doesn't mention "bad bishop" as a simple characteristic of a position.It rejects a perfectly normal move because of it , implying that it is a major liability , or not?

     The positions after 3.e3  are rich in strategic possibilities for both sides but some can only see the very bad  "bad bishop".At the same time they suggest Colle  ,(totally unacceptable suggestion for beginners of a system that is very shallow and doesn't help you to learn)

    "Bad bishop" is the most misunderstood concept in chess .Even players with high understanding  don't fully understand when a "bad bishop" is an asset and when it is a liability.

   I would talk about "bad bishop" (in fact I was planning on creating one) but only after many moves and after explaining all the characteristics of the position.

But first they have to understand that a  position  should be evaluated and treated as an entity."Disliking" positions by pointing out isolated features is the mistake they must not do.

    I consider this argument beneficial for all.There are no "Taboo" subjects in chess that should not be discussed.Maybe the discussion about "bad bishop" opened too early.You don't talk in Lesson 2 about "bad bishop" but even now it is good to see different opinions on critical matters like "bad bishop" and it is good to realise that you have to avoid superficial conclusions.

Finally I want to say that although I believe he has misunderstood "bad bishop"  I consider Mindwalk a better teacher than me.The argument is not of personal nature and I don't claim that I possess the "Ultimate Truth"(no one does) . I am not even sure I am right.

All I do is share some thoughts with you.No matter what I or anyone else will say, you are the ones that will decide and hopefully this conflict of "terminology" will be helpful.

Excellent definition of "bad bishop".With very few lines you said what I wasn't able to say with "pages".

    A bishop that has a specific job to do  is not a "bad bishop" although it may still called "bad bishop".These 2 have to be separated if we want to be able to fully understand a position.

whether it is a good term or not, it is something that has often confused me when reading the articles or viewing the video lessons on this site. so I am thankful to both of you for the clarifications, and caveats as to why not to automatically consider my (or my opponents) "bad bishop" as a weakness.

Hmm. My background is in analytic philosophy and mathematics, so perhaps I am more used to redefined terms than most. Let me give you an example (and one that confused me at first). In physics, the term "work" has a specialized meaning. If you carry a suitcase at the same height from the ground for a mile, you have done no work against the gravitational field, in the physics sense of the word. Have you *labored*? Of course you have. Is it hard to do? Of course it is. In that ordinary sense, it's work! But in the physics sense, it's not.

Similarly, I'm pointing to two different *definitions* of the words "good" and "bad" with respect to bishops--two different senses of the words. A bishop that is good in one sense might be bad in the other, and vice versa. You're right that we don't say "bad pawn" but instead say "doubled pawn." That's why I think it's a useful suggestion to say not "bad bishop" but, say, "locked-in bishop." That way, the strictly feature-of-the-position sense is kept entirely separate from the evaluative, this-bishop-isn't-useful-here sense.

And I'm saying that while we might bemoan the terminology, the terms "bad bishop" and "good bishop" are in fact sometimes used in that "locked-in"/"not locked-in" sense, and we have to understand other people when they use the terms that way, so we have to be aware of that usage even if we decide not to use it ourselves in the training game (or elsewhere in The Learning Group). When someone says, "Thus-and-such says this is a bad bishop; what does he mean?" it is not always true that thus-and-such means that it's a forever-useless bishop. Sometimes it just means that it's a locked-in bishop (which, were it an endgame, would be undesirable). If you're always going to use the evaluative sense, then it would be helpful, I think, if you announced that, and if you also introduced alternative terms for "bad"/"locked-in" and "good"/"not locked-in" bishops.

In the evaluative sense, of course, any piece is good if it has an important job to do, at best neutral if it's not doing anything useful, and bad if it's not only not doing anything useful but getting in the way of your doing what you want to do with another piece. Often, evaluations are mixed: a piece might be doing something useful but *also* getting in the way of your doing something else you want to do. Ultimate evaluations depend on which turns out to be more important--the job it's doing or its getting in the way of your doing something else. And sometimes a piece does something useful that still isn't really what you want it to be doing. A bishop defending a pawn really isn't doing what you want a bishop to be doing--you want your pieces to be mobile and active rather than tied down to the defense of pawns and passive; on the other hand, the defense of the pawn is a necessary task, so the bishop is hardly useless. And I'm someone who plays the sort of chess in which my position is often cramped for a while and I just have to live with it for a while, so I'm well aware that a piece that isn't being useful *now* might be useful *later*.

Incidentally, you and my master friend seem to differ on the Colle System. He regards it as relatively safe and easy to play, with a simple plan, so that it's good for the beginner. I don't know which of you is right.

I will agree that I don't like a bishop defending a pawn but I think you will agree that in chess we can't have them all.We would all love having all pieces attacking at the same time , don't we?But that rarely can happen(unless our opponent plays terribly wrong).So we have to divide our moves and our pieces to "supporters" and "attackers".

          How many times we must do precautionary moves?Do you feel happy when you have to play Kh1 to hide your king , before starting operations?No you don't , but you must.In the same way a bishop sometimes should stay "behind" to keep your pawn structure solid and give you other options.You keep a defender to create 3 other attackers.It is a common tactic to almost all closed or semi-closed openings and not only.It's a tactic that appears even in the so called open games.Ruy Lopez for example:

The asbove position(Lutz-Anand,2004) with white having 2 "active" bishops and black having a "bad" one is considered not only equal but also very comfortable for black.Wouldn't Anand loved to have his Be7 attacking?I bet he would but he can't.And it is indeed weird that I heard no one say that I dislike Closed Ruy Lopez because it has a "bad bishop".I bet you wouldn't say it also Mindwalk ,would you?

            p.s.  I agree that Colle is safe and easy but the positions it produces are one sided and  doesn't help beginners to learn.Some openings if you understand them , means nothing.Other openings  if you understand them , you understand chess.Colle(which BTW I like a lot) is not one of them. 

As I've said, the central pawns have to go somewhere, so it's often hard not to block one of one's own bishops for a time. But note that "for a time." It's important.

In the Ruy Lopez position, yes, the e7-bishop is bad, but we note that a bishop's badness in the sense of its being on the same color square as its central pawns doesn't matter as much if (1) the bishop gets outside the pawn chain; (2) the pawn structure is fluid. In the Lopez case, the pawn structure is fluid, so even though the bishop is bad in the sense of being blocked by its own pawns, it isn't sooooo bad, since there's the prospect of getting those pawns off of dark squares.

I actually agree with practically everything you say; I am mostly noting a terminological difference that I think it's important to understand in order to understand various chess authors. Silman, like him or not, is particularly clear in defining his terms: "good" vs. "bad" means the "locked-in" vs. "not locked in" sense, while "active" vs. "inactive" means a lot more what you seem to have in mind by "good" and "bad." I imagine not all chess authors are so clear!

Anyway, yes, sometimes you have to do what you'd really rather not do. You don't want to play Kh1, but you do, because you know you really have to. It's still bad that you have to burn a tempo doing it--it's just necessary to burn it.

By the way, if you're not aiming for a Colle System, what in the world is 3 e3 for? I'm mystified.

I am aiming in simple chess and simple chess doesn't need openings.....just simple thinking.

I will do that, some of the puzzles are explained through endgame theory.

For example Puzzle #1 needs no explanation and to Puzzles  #2 and #3 the explanation is the same as in Puzzle #11.If someone didn't understod them, they are still a good practice.