Bishop or Knight?

Sort:
Avatar of lfPatriotGames
ThrillerFan wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Everyone always says it depends on the position. And sometimes that is probably true. But I think it depends on the player, not the position. A great position with a bishop will easily be defeated by a poor position with a knight if the person with the bishop doesn't know what to do.

 

WRONG!  You can't tell me the position is great for White because player X is playing White and then say the same position is bad for White because player Y sucks at Bishop endings.

 

If you suck at Bishop endings, you suck at chess!  PERIOD!

 

You do not need to know every opening.  If you don't know the Najdorf, and you don't play 1.e4 as White or Sicilian as Black, there is no reason to know it.

 

However, you need to know all endings.  Does not matter if you play the French, Dragon, or Alekhine against 1.e4.  You still have to know what to do when your game reaches a rook ending!  At that point, who the f*ck cares whether you got there via Latvian Gambit or Colle System?

Yes I can say that because I've seen it. Sometimes someone will have a good position, and not know how to win it. Sometimes the person with the worse position wins, simply because they know more about winning with certain peices and positions.

Avatar of iceman073
ThrillerFan wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Everyone always says it depends on the position. And sometimes that is probably true. But I think it depends on the player, not the position. A great position with a bishop will easily be defeated by a poor position with a knight if the person with the bishop doesn't know what to do.

 

WRONG!  You can't tell me the position is great for White because player X is playing White and then say the same position is bad for White because player Y sucks at Bishop endings.

 

If you suck at Bishop endings, you suck at chess!  PERIOD!

 

You do not need to know every opening.  If you don't know the Najdorf, and you don't play 1.e4 as White or Sicilian as Black, there is no reason to know it.

 

However, you need to know all endings.  Does not matter if you play the French, Dragon, or Alekhine against 1.e4.  You still have to know what to do when your game reaches a rook ending!  At that point, who the f*ck cares whether you got there via Latvian Gambit or Colle System?

 

I simply suck in chess.  Look at my rating.  So, I'm willing to learn more to improve my skill.  Your explanation makes a lot sense.  I'll have to get the ebook that OverGrownPawn recommended.  

Avatar of iceman073

Thanks for the inputs!  I'm just a mediocre but I'm willing to improve even if it means just adding 100 points to my current rating.  I will keep playing and get the ebook that OverGrownPawn recommended.  

Avatar of Supatag

Knights can be supreme as can bishops. I recall someone writing about a game we'd recently played: "Tag is really annoying to play, you take the light squares away from him and he plays on the black squares. You then take the black squares away from him and he beats you by playing on the cracks between the squares."

Knights will do that to you.

Avatar of eric0022
TurtleTycoon7 wrote:

...but it all depends on the particular position, of course.

 

Correct. Sometimes both pieces are equally strong.

 

Avatar of chadnilsen
eric0022 wrote:
TurtleTycoon7 wrote:

...but it all depends on the particular position, of course.

 

Correct. Sometimes both pieces are equally strong.

 

XD

Avatar of VehementPower

If the promotion square matches the colour of the bishop, I advise the bishop. If not, trade for a knight

Avatar of VehementPower

If the promotion square matches the colour of the bishop, I advise the bishop. If not, trade for a knight

Avatar of MickinMD
chadnilsen wrote:

Bishops are usually better in the endgame. Especially when there are pawns on both sides of the board. Bishops can jump from one side of the board to another while in takes a Knight about 3 moves.

It depends on the situation.  Check out this endgame where my Knight was useful and my opponent's Bishop was virtually useless despite Pawns on both sides of the board. Yes, I has a 7 to 5 Pawn advantage by the time we were down to N vs B, but the B was useless in any case.

 

Avatar of chadnilsen
MickinMD wrote:
chadnilsen wrote:

Bishops are usually better in the endgame. Especially when there are pawns on both sides of the board. Bishops can jump from one side of the board to another while in takes a Knight about 3 moves.

It depends on the situation.  Check out this endgame where my Knight was useful and my opponent's Bishop was virtually useless despite Pawns on both sides of the board. Yes, I has a 7 to 5 Pawn advantage by the time we were down to N vs B, but the B was useless in any case.

 

Hmm. You were already up 2 pawns by the time it got down to B and N so it's unclear. But it is definitely more common for the bishop to be favored.

Avatar of iceman073

I'll post an example where I lost the game to the opponent whose his bishop was more powerful than my knight.  Will do that later.  

Avatar of Nordlandia

Slightly offtopic: do you prefer Q+N or Q+B endgames?

Capablanca favoured Q+N duo. 

Avatar of eric0022
Nordlandia wrote:

Slightly offtopic: do you prefer Q+N or Q+B endgames?

Capablanca favoured Q+N duo. 

 

Definitely within topic. In this case, the knight supplements the inabilities of the queen (queens cannot move like knights) to the maximum.

Avatar of VehementPower
iceman073 wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

Everyone always says it depends on the position. And sometimes that is probably true. But I think it depends on the player, not the position. A great position with a bishop will easily be defeated by a poor position with a knight if the person with the bishop doesn't know what to do.

 

WRONG!  You can't tell me the position is great for White because player X is playing White and then say the same position is bad for White because player Y sucks at Bishop endings.

 

If you suck at Bishop endings, you suck at chess!  PERIOD!

 

You do not need to know every opening.  If you don't know the Najdorf, and you don't play 1.e4 as White or Sicilian as Black, there is no reason to know it.

 

However, you need to know all endings.  Does not matter if you play the French, Dragon, or Alekhine against 1.e4.  You still have to know what to do when your game reaches a rook ending!  At that point, who the f*ck cares whether you got there via Latvian Gambit or Colle System?

 

I simply suck in chess.  Look at my rating.  So, I'm willing to learn more to improve my skill.  Your explanation makes a lot sense.  I'll have to get the ebook that OverGrownPawn recommended.  

Almost 1700 rating simply does not "suck"

Avatar of VehementPower
Nordlandia wrote:

Slightly offtopic: do you prefer Q+N or Q+B endgames?

Capablanca favoured Q+N duo. 

Queens and knights combined are basically doomsday. Yeah, I agree

Avatar of TameLava

Supposedly, according to Garry Kasparov, a bishop is worth 3.15 whereas a Knight is worth 3...

Also, Fisher said that a bishop was worth 3.25 verses 3 for a Knight...

Avatar of iceman073

null

Here's the example of the game.  I played white.  My opponent's bishop was better than my knight.  

Avatar of chadnilsen

Bishop are definitely usually better. Here's an example (from a daily chess game I'm playing) of how bishops can really restrict a knight's movement (I played Bc5):

null

Avatar of TameLava

Definitely usually

Avatar of TameLava

happy.png