ok alexy777
a bishop's worth
Sort:
I really like the way the response has brought out the genius in us all. You know if we liken openings to styles of battle, we strike out with choice weapons and leave the others to finish the job or get back into the fray. Closed attacks prefer knights as hunters and scouts and open poses use bishops the very same way, probing and searching for weaknesses. During the battle we alter positions by snapping out a quick jab and a rapid cross over the hooks of our opponent. And his hooks are nullified. We choose to take another shot to the body, because our eye swelling. But we have saved a piece with good knockout abilities or it can hold us up to a draw. This only comes with practice and the idea to master a given style of play. Kicks and sweeps become choices in your repertoire so they are slightly held back to increase their effectiveness. Mid board pawn exchanges are accepted or avoided because you know your style and you believe in your system. Points were deep into chess before computers and pioneers who dared to be a little different. If all of our attacks and decisions remain a pattern of play, then our great game will never grow or be tested. Bobby Fischer set up the chess board like and angry child, and everyone thought it was deep. Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali shocked the world of martial arts in the things that they saw, and said about fighting. So much so that they shared ideas. Let us not get stuck on what books say because some of them are wrong. No book is responsible for our play any way, when we choose not to copy. It is in us and our expression of battle can't hide it will always surface, if we battle as ourselves.
If the bishop has better mobility in a game then it is more valuable. If its movements are confined, then the knight has more value.
bishop should be 3.5 in an open position but in a closed positiong(crammed position) it should saty 3 points
Well, you might think you would trade your opponent's two bishops for your two knights + pawn likely giving you a lost endgame.
@ sstteevveenn, Well, of course that would depend on the position right, sacking a queen in the right pose is also a good move. Wins are not determined by the opposing points on the board; but by the most chessic position. My idea is a thought of personal play, and my mind is not stone. There are other creative facets to a style or system than what is on the surface.
Well it would depend on a position, but the material count serves 2 main purposes. It tells you how you are going to do in a trade of pieces, and it tells you roughly how you are doing with respect to the endgame.
@ sstteevveenn, May I politely disagree, as one of our buddies gave us an idea with black having overwhelming points and white had just a queen and a knight. Our friend showed a queen sac (on g8 I think) followed by a mating knight (at f7 I think). The position tells us how we are doing in a game. If we have 18 points tucked in a corner or on just one side of the board. Our king could be mated by a mere 7 point combination.
rich is the definition of a duffer
shango7 wrote:
I really like the way the response has brought out the genius in us all. You know if we liken openings to styles of battle, we strike out with choice weapons and leave the others to finish the job or get back into the fray. Closed attacks prefer knights as hunters and scouts and open poses use bishops the very same way, probing and searching for weaknesses. During the battle we alter positions by snapping out a quick jab and a rapid cross over the hooks of our opponent. And his hooks are nullified. We choose to take another shot to the body, because our eye swelling. But we have saved a piece with good knockout abilities or it can hold us up to a draw. This only comes with practice and the idea to master a given style of play. Kicks and sweeps become choices in your repertoire so they are slightly held back to increase their effectiveness. Mid board pawn exchanges are accepted or avoided because you know your style and you believe in your system. Points were deep into chess before computers and pioneers who dared to be a little different. If all of our attacks and decisions remain a pattern of play, then our great game will never grow or be tested. Bobby Fischer set up the chess board like and angry child, and everyone thought it was deep. Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali shocked the world of martial arts in the things that they saw, and said about fighting. So much so that they shared ideas. Let us not get stuck on what books say because some of them are wrong. No book is responsible for our play any way, when we choose not to copy. It is in us and our expression of battle can't hide it will always surface, if we battle as ourselves.
Written like a beginner who thinks he knows something about the game.
If you really care about the game learn the fundamentals and stop talking
nonsense. Eventually, after losing game after game because you don't
understand the value of the pieces to an opponent who has simply learned that elementary lesson, you'll either quit or learn the lesson
you should have long before. Also, you don't have any style or meaningful
expression as you play at chess; You are a raw beginner and are light years away from
having the kind of mastery of the chessic elements that would allow you to
express on the board anything worth caring about.
goldendog wrote:
shango7 wrote:
I really like the way the response has brought out the genius in us all. You know if we liken openings to styles of battle, we strike out with choice weapons and leave the others to finish the job or get back into the fray. Closed attacks prefer knights as hunters and scouts and open poses use bishops the very same way, probing and searching for weaknesses. During the battle we alter positions by snapping out a quick jab and a rapid cross over the hooks of our opponent. And his hooks are nullified. We choose to take another shot to the body, because our eye swelling. But we have saved a piece with good knockout abilities or it can hold us up to a draw. This only comes with practice and the idea to master a given style of play. Kicks and sweeps become choices in your repertoire so they are slightly held back to increase their effectiveness. Mid board pawn exchanges are accepted or avoided because you know your style and you believe in your system. Points were deep into chess before computers and pioneers who dared to be a little different. If all of our attacks and decisions remain a pattern of play, then our great game will never grow or be tested. Bobby Fischer set up the chess board like and angry child, and everyone thought it was deep. Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali shocked the world of martial arts in the things that they saw, and said about fighting. So much so that they shared ideas. Let us not get stuck on what books say because some of them are wrong. No book is responsible for our play any way, when we choose not to copy. It is in us and our expression of battle can't hide it will always surface, if we battle as ourselves. Written like a beginner who thinks he knows something about the game. If you really care about the game learn the fundamentals and stop talking nonsense. Eventually, after losing game after game because you don't understand the value of the pieces to an opponent who has simply learned that elementary lesson, you'll either quit or learn the lesson you should have long before. Also, you don't have any style or meaningful expression as you play at chess; You are a raw beginner and are light years away from having the kind of mastery of the chessic elements that would allow you to express on the board anything worth caring about.
goldendog -- I'm curious if you lacked the ability to make your point without so much spleen or if you just chose not to.
"goldendog -- I'm curious if you lacked the ability to make your point without so much spleen or if you just chose not to."
Just seeing if one can get through that brick wall.
Did you not read the thread?
goldendog wrote:
"goldendog -- I'm curious if you lacked the ability to make your point without so much spleen or if you just chose not to." Just seeing if one can get through that brick wall. Did you not read the thread?
Is your position that if you perceive someone to be a brick wall, you can be as uncivil as you like?
I did read the thread. I'm curious, however, to know why that has anything to do with the question I asked you.
I wanted to compliment the issues brought up by our fellow scribes. They spoke about science, philosophy, war, and even centripetal force to get their message across.
@ goldendog I'm far from a beginner, and I have changed my style of play many times. And I have already learned the fundamentals, and punk I don't talk nonsense. If you don't agree with me, good. Make your statement and be done chump. I also tried to express myself to the probable young readers fool. I do have a style as I play, challenge me face to face. As far as getting my point across to your liking, how is this: Critical people are not creative. And this: You are a creep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shango7 wrote:
I wanted to compliment the issues brought up by our fellow scribes. They spoke about science, philosophy, war, and even centripetal force to get their message across. @ goldendog I'm far from a beginner, and I have changed my style of play many times. And I have already learned the fundamentals, and punk I don't talk nonsense. If you don't agree with me, good. Make your statment and be done chump. I also tried to express myself to the probable young readers fool. I do have a style as I play, challenge me face to face. As far as getting my point across to your liking, how is this: Critical people are not creative. And this: You are a creep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Invincible ignorance.
goldenmutt,you are a thumb sucker who needs much attention!!!!!!!!!
shango7 wrote:
goldenmutt,you are a thumb sucker who needs much attention!!!!!!!!!
An answer calculated to win friends and influence people.
"I'm far from a beginner, and I have changed my style of play many times. And I have already learned the fundamentals"
You are a child. Anyone who is wondering if a bishop should be worth 4 points (you, btw) does not have a grasp on the fundamentals. If chess were swimming you'd be a lifeless ball at the bottom of the pool and even you would have realized that you can't swim. But since this is chess, you somehow can continue to fool yourself.
Consider stop making useless noise and pick up a good, basic book on the game.
@ yellowmutt, I wasn't wondering if a bishop should be worth 4 points, I merely brought up a good topic you asinine glory seeker. And as a matter of choice I'd like to end with a bishop, you pitiful mess. This is an idea I chose to shoot past high exponents of the game, because it is a good argument. Who knows you might learn something. There are only stupid anwers you idiotic turd. Only those who know much can consider trying something new, you big dummy. only winners can say: Let me try it this way!
The bishop's worth is parallel to it's contribution. In other words, a bishop's worth is determined depending on how efficient the bishop is in a certain position.