shango7 wrote:
Learn how to read ahole!!!!!! Then your replies may have weight. I have a library of chess books, that is why a know a good question and a chessasshole such as yourself. Good night Bowwow and please don't reply your are silly.
Well those books are for careful study not beating your head silly with. So
which tome in your library led you to conclude a bishop was worth half a
queen? Ah ha. I see. Silence.
You know spinelesspup, there are other people who gave thought to this forum who say a bishop's worth also varies, ranging from 2.5 to 4.5. Can you please annoy these individuals who also go against the dormant and stagnated thought of an archaicdesign. Damn you are a pest. I bet you give your mate fits over adolescent bullcrap. Deal with someone else!!!!
shango7 wrote:
You know spinelesspup, there are other people who gave thought to this forum who say a bishop's worth also varies, ranging from 2.5 to 4.5. Can you please annoy these individuals who also go against the dormant and stagnated thought of an archaicdesign. Damn you are a pest. I bet you give your mate fits over adolescent bullcrap. Deal with someone else!!!!
Your problem, among a few I gather, is that you don't understand that you
don't understand. Have fun with that.
If you can't handle being corrected in the same place you issue proclamations
that are seriously defective, too bad. Really. Too bad.
If you can't stand the horribly incendiary conditions of a chess thread then
you are some dainty flower. Leave before you wilt I guess.
If you hadn't behaved like a petulant child you wouldn't have been treated like
one. All that childish name calling isn't worthy of an adult. I doubt anyone
was impressed by you for that.
Finally, if you can't make an argument, stop arguing and instead pause to listen.
A temper is a piss-poor substitute for thought.
This is a conversation question. For those who love chess. We don't have much to rap about as far this game goes. What--10 or 12 favorite openings, our favorite players? Naa, this is a chessic question that has inspired good answers. Peace.
shango7 wrote:
You know spinelesspup, there are other people who gave thought to this forum who say a bishop's worth also varies, ranging from 2.5 to 4.5. Can you please annoy these individuals who also go against the dormant and stagnated thought of an archaicdesign. Damn you are a pest. I bet you give your mate fits over adolescent bullcrap. Deal with someone else!!!!
Your problem, among a few I gather, is that you don't understand that you
don't understand. Have fun with that.
If you can't handle being corrected in the same place you issue proclamations
that are seriously defective, too bad. Really. Too bad.
If you can't stand the horribly incendiary conditions of a chess thread then
you are some dainty flower. Leave before you wilt I guess.
If you hadn't behaved like a petulant child you wouldn't have been treated like
one. All that childish name calling isn't worthy of an adult. I doubt anyone
was impressed by you for that.
Finally, if you can't make an argument, stop arguing and instead pause to listen.
A temper is a piss-poor substitute for thought.
I am an unbiased observer with truly no dog in this fight. I think goldendog may have been the first to show temper and resort to ad homimen attacks. I agree that shango7 has been in the wrong with his name calling, but I'm at a loss to understand why there was so much vitriol from goldendog. Shango7's "crime" according to goldendog is to be an unthinking blockhead. Wow. That's never happened on the Internet before. I don't see any reason why you can't address unthinking blockheads civilly. If they are a "brickwall" and don't listen, if you have limitless patience, then try to continue to convince them if you want, but if not, then why not just stop talking to them?
I must apologize to those who really wanted to get deep into this topic. I interrupted what could have been a good, powerful, and generous forum. With my needless explosions, I upset a good thing. Not a good example to the young players who might have a disagreement later in their chess life. Peace.
It seems to me that there were two parts in the back and forth here. One was strictly a chess question about basic piece values that I think has been settled. I love this game and respect it as something even more than that. The other part wasn't about chess. It was like a martial art of the internet. In my opinion one person saw that the other was very emotional and wasn't going to back down about a statement of fact so let that momentum be used in an aikido way against him. So they went back and forth. But as soon as one says "I was wrong" all that momentum is gone maybe like bowing in a match and collecting your thoughts. That and without all the emotion and pride. From personal experience, being able to say "I was wrong" is handy and healthy. On the other hand no one got hurt here. It is just another internet forum. No blood and no bruises right? Good to have a thick skin on the internet anyway right? Probably the most important thing was the chess question anyway right?
I was mentioning in another post that I picked up Bobby Fisher's book and in it he assigns the bishop 3.5 points to the Knight's 3.
It has to do with position and I don't think he was being literal but I think he at the very least means to say the bishop has a slight edge over the knight in importance especially with regards to the endgame.
I was mentioning in another post that I picked up Bobby Fisher's book and in it he assigns the bishop 3.5 points to the Knight's 3.
It has to do with position and I don't think he was being literal but I think he at the very least means to say the bishop has a slight edge over the knight in importance especially with regards to the endgame.
General point values I agree. Good for using generally throughout a game. Specific positions may change what kind of exchanges make sense like you say. In the quote the Fischer book values are different Bishop is 3.25 but is your edition different? The Fischer values are pretty much what I (1700 USCF 2 decades) and my friends go by. Standard mainstream.
Bobby Fischer gave the values:
pawn = 1
knight = 3
bishop = 3¼
rook = 5
queen = 9 (Fischer, Mosenfelder & Margulies 1972:14).
It reminds me of a chess session an old partner and I had. Going through a game of mine he says "there you go again giving up your good knight for a Bishop". I was basically Huh? He pointed out that I had the habit to trade a Knight for a Bishop. Worth more though I always thought BUT he pointed out my Knight was on a decent outpost at e5 and his Bishop was on d7 and no mobility. My supposedly inferior Knight was worth more than his Bishop at least right then. After that little lesson from my friend I thought about such things a little longer. What does the chessboard say about this I'd ask!
IM Larry Kaufman has an excellent article on the evaluation of material imbalances. Highly recommended.
Gonnoske -- Please don't post any helpful articles, I might learn something and improve my game. We can't have that.
a bishop in the center of the board can control up to 13 squares. a knight can only control 8. mathematically speaking...the bisho[p is a bit stronger. 2 bishops side my side are just as good as 2 rooks blocking a double lane. why is this an arguement? it's looking heated in here over this! if a bishop or a knight is the only piece remaining its equally useless ...correct? I think it's up to the player, and the game in question. i personally snipe the knights to prevent the forking. knight masters (for lack of a better word for them).. suck!
Amen HappiestFella. phillydan you are always on point. I'd like to something about the use or the word wrong. I posed the question, for entertainment and sporty chat. It is my opinion that carries the conversation. My opining is not law or exactitude in any way. Like a chess game it is supposed to be give and take, to sharpen our understanding of the game. At the same time to enjoy chess chat. I had no problem standing up to anyone else. And by the way my Aikido is strong!!! Utz!!!
PhillyDan: ...a bishop in the center of the board can control up to 13 squares. a knight can only control 8. mathematically speaking...the bisho[p is a bit stronger.
You assume that the worth of piece is defined purely by the number of squares it can control at any one time. But there are important differences between the Knight and Bishop which should be taken into account.
1) The Knight 'jumps' -- its squares can't be 'blocked' -- when a Knight gives check, no interposition is possible.
2) Secondly, a Knight can move to all 64 squares of the chessboard, the Bishop can move to only half, either the dark or light colored squares.
A good point JG27Pyth. I was waiting for someone to add the non-stop argument for the knight.
@JG27Pyth, I like your thought. But we must be careful because a queen's attack can be blocked, a rook can touch every square. And we can't put a knight's worth close to either. 13 squares for the Bishop, 8 squares for the knight. Does the maneuverability of the knight equal the strength of the bishop??
on the center on a blank board, is when that happens. so bishops ARE better in open positions :)
knights are better in closed positions, and bishops are better in open ones
EXACTLY!! RELee1863
Learn how to read ahole!!!!!! Then your replies may have weight. I have a library of chess books, that is why a know a good question and a chessasshole such as yourself. Good night Bowwow and please don't reply your are silly.