I'm INTERMEDIATE. What to do when intermediate?
Q+A for beginners(and everyone else)
Sort:
little_guinea_pig wrote:
rychessmaster1 wrote:
Wow we are talking about mice now
YUP!
Cindy0818 wrote:
I'm INTERMEDIATE. What to do when intermediate?
I think you should commit, one way or the other.
Get "The Fine Art of Chess", the book that will make any chess player 500 elos stronger:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SPFTJSZ/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=fine+art+of+chess&qid=1559713092&s=books&sr=1-6
Paperback will follow in a week or so.
Jun 5, 2019
0
#626
In some games of mine, I've noticed how strong the bishop is against the knight in an open endgame, roghly speaking, how would you value it in that scenario, would it be worth sacrificing a pawn just to enter such ending? (OFC assuming nothing ludicrous like two connected passed pawns on the verge of promotion)
well @prometheus_fuschs i don't know if it is relevant exactly, but i am in an end game tourney and it is my NPP vs his R, you would think he could slice and dice me but he can't (connected pawns) in fact he can only win if i do something really stupid, if I had more skill I think i could probably win it, likely will be a draw / stalemate.
My point being, i think most pieces are underrated in end games if they have more pawn(s) and sacs should always be considered, even if on paper it is even / trading down
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
In some games of mine, I've noticed how strong the bishop is against the knight in an open endgame, roghly speaking, how would you value it in that scenario, would it be worth sacrificing a pawn just to enter such ending? (OFC assuming nothing ludicrous like two connected passed pawns on the verge of promotion)
A full pawn is too much.
More like half a pawn's wood or so.
Meaning you could sac just half a pawn, needing to split it up in the meantime.
Mostly will depend on how large the "pawn span" is - that is, the distance between your rightmost and leftmost pawns, those on the king and queen sides.
The more empty files in between, the better for the bishop.
A bishop can simultaneously attack enemy pawns and defend friendly ones; a knight can't do that.
Hence the difference.
A bishop is always stronger than a knight, in the general case.
Fischer and similar-level gamesmen referred to this phenomenon as the "minor exchange".
But how many people do that?
Many will claim knight and bishop are equal, lol.
Jun 5, 2019
0
#630
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
A bishop is always stronger than a knight, in the general case.
Fischer and similar-level gamesmen referred to this phenomenon as the "minor exchange".
But how many people do that?
Many will claim knight and bishop are equal, lol.
I'm not so sure about this; I believe they are roughly equal. Sure, Bishops love the open positions described, but what about Petrosian's infamous sacrificing of Rooks for the opposing Knights in closed positions and then utilizing the monster Knights in closed positions?
Clearly, any chess piece is only as strong as its active role on the board and its potential. In some positions a Bishop may be so great that it feels like it is worth closer to 5 pawns, but the same could be said for a Knight as well.
p.s. Although I am virtually certain that you already knew this Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/are-bishops-better-than-knights
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/knights-or-bishop-12
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/which-are-better-for-the-endgame-knights-or-bishops
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-is-the-better-bishop-or-knight
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
In some games of mine, I've noticed how strong the bishop is against the knight in an open endgame, roghly speaking, how would you value it in that scenario, would it be worth sacrificing a pawn just to enter such ending? (OFC assuming nothing ludicrous like two connected passed pawns on the verge of promotion)
I'd avoid sacrificing a pawn 95% percent of the time in this situation. It would have to be really strong bishop and really weak knight just to compensate for the pawn, much less for Bishop-side to have an advantage.
Here's a famous game - http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032203 (move 36) where White sacced a pawn to reach a favorable ending and ultimately win the game. Note what kind of advantages White had in this particular position to justify his pawn sac: it was not Bishop vs Knight but Bishop pair vs Knight pair in an open position, in addition to Black's doubled pawns and permanent b6 weakness.
Jun 6, 2019
0
#633
wollyhood escribió:
well @prometheus_fuschs i don't know if it is relevant exactly, but i am in an end game tourney and it is my NPP vs his R, you would think he could slice and dice me but he can't (connected pawns) in fact he can only win if i do something really stupid, if I had more skill I think i could probably win it, likely will be a draw / stalemate.
My point being, i think most pieces are underrated in end games if they have more pawn(s) and sacs should always be considered, even if on paper it is even / trading down
I do value NPP more than R, if that's the only thing on the board then NPP must be better because if you somehow lost both pawns, you'd still be safe as KRKN endings are draws.
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
A bishop is always stronger than a knight, in the general case.
Fischer and similar-level gamesmen referred to this phenomenon as the "minor exchange".
But how many people do that?
Many will claim knight and bishop are equal, lol.
I'm not so sure about this; I believe they are roughly equal. Sure, Bishops love the open positions described, but what about Petrosian's infamous sacrificing of Rooks for the opposing Knights in closed positions and then utilizing the monster Knights in closed positions?
Clearly, any chess piece is only as strong as its active role on the board and its potential. In some positions a Bishop may be so great that it feels like it is worth closer to 5 pawns, but the same could be said for a Knight as well.
p.s. Although I am virtually certain that you already knew this Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
We are talking of statistical relevance here, and he asked about open positions, not any random configuration.
If you don't listen to me, listen to Fischer.
His commentaries abound with phrases like "winning the minor exchange", etc.
Implying the superiority of the bishop.
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
wollyhood escribió:
well @prometheus_fuschs i don't know if it is relevant exactly, but i am in an end game tourney and it is my NPP vs his R, you would think he could slice and dice me but he can't (connected pawns) in fact he can only win if i do something really stupid, if I had more skill I think i could probably win it, likely will be a draw / stalemate.
My point being, i think most pieces are underrated in end games if they have more pawn(s) and sacs should always be considered, even if on paper it is even / trading down
I do value NPP more than R, if that's the only thing on the board then NPP must be better because if you somehow lost both pawns, you'd still be safe as KRKN endings are draws.
Paradoxically, in the late endgame, R is stronger than NPP, with pawns available on both wings.
That's because of the highly increased rook mobility when pieces come off the board.
In the opening and middlegame, the tables are turned - NPP is stronger than R.
Rooks are way less mobile then.
That's why rooks tend to increase their relative value the closer the ending, while horses, donkeys and mares, contrarily, tend to "wane".
Jun 6, 2019
0
#636
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
wollyhood escribió:
well @prometheus_fuschs i don't know if it is relevant exactly, but i am in an end game tourney and it is my NPP vs his R, you would think he could slice and dice me but he can't (connected pawns) in fact he can only win if i do something really stupid, if I had more skill I think i could probably win it, likely will be a draw / stalemate.
My point being, i think most pieces are underrated in end games if they have more pawn(s) and sacs should always be considered, even if on paper it is even / trading down
I do value NPP more than R, if that's the only thing on the board then NPP must be better because if you somehow lost both pawns, you'd still be safe as KRKN endings are draws.
Paradoxically, in the late endgame, R is stronger than NPP, with pawns available on both wings.
That's because of the highly increased rook mobility when pieces come off the board.
In the opening and middlegame, the tables are turned - NPP is stronger than R.
Rooks are way less mobile then.
That's why rooks tend to increase their relative value the closer the ending, while horses, donkeys and mares, contrarily, tend to "wane".
By late endgame do you mean just KRKNPP?
In that case 36% of the times black is winning, 55% of the times it's a draw and 9% of the times white is winning.
Note: Black is the one with KNPP.
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=5R2/6pp/K3k3/7n/8/8/8/8_w_-_-_0_1
Do you think I will become the World Champion? I was foretold to be one.
PS.
I'm not kidding.
Jun 6, 2019
0
#638
Geodesist216 escribió:
Do you think I will become the World Champion? I was foretold to be one.
PS.
I'm not kidding.
No
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
wollyhood escribió:
well @prometheus_fuschs i don't know if it is relevant exactly, but i am in an end game tourney and it is my NPP vs his R, you would think he could slice and dice me but he can't (connected pawns) in fact he can only win if i do something really stupid, if I had more skill I think i could probably win it, likely will be a draw / stalemate.
My point being, i think most pieces are underrated in end games if they have more pawn(s) and sacs should always be considered, even if on paper it is even / trading down
I do value NPP more than R, if that's the only thing on the board then NPP must be better because if you somehow lost both pawns, you'd still be safe as KRKN endings are draws.
That is good to hear, I need a table that shows what is supposedly better than other things, of course I guess it is so dependent on whether the pawns are connected etc. I guess the ultimate table is simply experience xD
How do you win most of the people on Chess.com?