Nimzowitsch favored knights over bishops
Chigorin liked knights too.
A bishop covers only 32 squares to a knight's 64.
I like to think of that as a fact rather than as a generalization.
Stands. (although somebody doesn't seem to realize that facts and generalizations aren't exclusive of each other. Has he been imagining all these decades that they're digital A or B? Not I.)
//////////////////
It stands in your imagination, as everything you utter (I think you use voice typing) always does.
Because regardless of the position a bishop can still only move on 32 squares maximum.
Whereas a knight can have up to 64 squares available.
I think you learned how to make logical argument from the likes of Elroch and Diogenes. I know you think they can't be beat but that's why you're in the state you're in. A right state, in fact. The fact is that they can't do it either.
A fact of the rules of chess.
But whoever - could quibble about the semantics of what a fact is.
We certainly could. All of us.
And keep forgetting about facts too.
Now you're talking about the fact that you're always right and make perfect argument every time. Stay on topic!!
Also obvious - a fact can be a generalization but doesn't have to be.
Well done! That actually is a fact and this one's a generalisation which doesn't apply to chess as it's played but only to the potential scope of the pieces on an empty board, forgetting that knights are rather slow.
A generalization can be a fact - but also doesn't have to be. Could be in error.
A generalisation is always a fact just as anything that exists is a fact in itself.
A knight can cover up to 64 squares.
Fact.
Amazing deduction sir!
So now I'll qualify it.
I like to think its fact. And it is. Obviously.
Definitely is one, yes. Well done sir! This is the real nitty gitty of the product of your amazing and wonderful intellect.
Its also a generalization - but an accurate one.
/////////////////////////
Getting back to the forum subjects -
Strong players have now affirmed that 'the two bishops' can be overrated ...
to 'get into' the subject of 'hypermodern' openings ...
knights and bishops and exchanges of one for the other is clearly relevant.
Experienced players know that bishops and knights constantly exchange roles as 'Cat and Mouse' ...
including in the Caro Kann main line being discussed.
Bf5 attacking the knight and the reply Ng3 immediately returning the attack 'favor'.
Point: the dogmatism of 'two bishops'.
Seems to enter into discussions of coaching in the opening.
Wasn't it time to rest on your laurels, some time ago? And why isn't Elroch here, applauding your magnificent contributions? Is he too busy guarding his threads by blocking people he gets his trolls to annoy?
This all has been derailed long ago. The OP set up a ridiculous set of generalizations about what's keeping people from improving that dragged in a bogus division between "classical players" and needing to read "My System" to understand hypermodern play. Since then it has gone off into arguments about specific openings that really don't help anyone understand anything about hypermodern chess or even the openings discussed. Given that and the nature of people to argue about nonsense for ages, this will likely go on for a couple more months for dozens of more pages.
Indeed. It is one of the most interesting threads I’ve seen in a while. Was a time when most of the chess discussion in these forums wasn’t beginners looking for that magic opening to get over 900.
Indeed indeed! Magnus Carlsen has shown recently that all that opening prep is of no use once you need to think outside of standard openings. Yet people who spend all day playing bullet with ratings around 300 will still lament the endless trickery of the Fried Liver and declare chess dead.