Somebody asks: "Did you win?"
He says: "Well... the doughnut place was closed, and I was grumpy."
Somebody says: "So you lost?"
Moral of the story: Don't blame your losses on the doughnut place.
Somebody asks: "Did you win?"
He says: "Well... the doughnut place was closed, and I was grumpy."
Somebody says: "So you lost?"
Moral of the story: Don't blame your losses on the doughnut place.
Somebody asks: "Did you win?"
He says: "Well... the doughnut place was closed, and I was grumpy."
Somebody says: "So you lost?"
Moral of the story: Don't blame your losses on the doughnut place.
Lots of variations on that one.
'there was a baby shower at my neighbor's place'
'I didn't like the latest sports news'
929. Trades bishop for knight in order to avoid getting forked
It's normal.
It's normal but it's dumb. Most of the advanced level players say that Bishops are generally better than Knights.
It depends on the situation, plus I would trade a bishop for a knight if I couldn't avoid a fork otherwise.
Over-generalizing that a trade of a bishop for a knight is bad - is itself 'bad' ...
there are many situations where a knight Romps ... or knights.
The most extreme one is probably when you have two knights against two bishops.
Which does come up in games.
Are the knights bad? The whole point of the game revolves around 'it depends'.
There are so many dogmatisms in chess.
'Doubled pawns are bad.' They can be Great.
Much more suspect than bishop for knight - is rook for bishop or for knight.
But that still can be good too.
Doesn't know that you cannot move other people's chess pieces, and moves the opponents queen to checkmate his King
Moves the rook out in the opening multiple times.