I think everyone is saying that bishops are stronger than knights. We seem to imply that knights need a given situation in order to really equal a bishop. Leading to the question: Would you trade N+P for a B??
Or, as I have thought on more then one occasion, when is it reasonable to trade bishop for a knight, or vice-versa, straight up?
where did rich say anything? and just because he has a fide rating doesnt means he is better than us. he thinks knights should be worth a pawn.
where did rich say anything? and just because he has a fide rating doesnt means he is better than us. he thinks knights should be worth a pawn.
Just because someone says they have a certain fide rating doesn't make it so. Rich says lots of stuff like a world champion said that Rooks Knights and Bishops were equal but no one can use those values and win much against an equal. I doubt that anyone who has written a chess book ever said that but if someone were to offer a quotation I'm sure we'd all love to check it out.
hmm, I thought theknightman was being sarcastic, but I really wasn't sure.
Should a bishop be worth 4 points??
Most of the old timers I used to play against valued them at 3.25 or 3.5 points. 4 points would be too high. That's like saying a bishop is worth a knight and a pawn. The disparity in power between bishop and knight is not that great in even the best circumstances and in some circumstances a knight would be preferred. A pair of bishops is still the best combination of minor pieces to have on the board simply because of their ability to attack from a safe distance. Knights must be sent into danger to be effective attackers.
JG27Pyth I am fully aware of that point to...the topic is on points of pieces and i merely quoted a GMs View on it...i made other posts that back up your comment....by the way everyone, are we trying to solve a problem, or just insult each others every word..... Christ!
controversial
the bishops and knights are equal bishops reign supreme in open positions and knights in closed positions. it the players responsiblity to make a bishop superior to a knight or vice versa. if the player has a bishop he will deny the knights any support points if the player has a knight he will cloe the position and trap the bishop while creating advanced support points for his knights. the rule is thus bishops like range(open posiotns where the can attack from distance) knights like close quarter combat
PhillyDan too many insults have been puked up here. It is as if few can make an intelligent statement. The question is intended to invite heavy thought from those of us who love chess and don't mind questioning a few archaic ideas. Sure every evaluation depends on the position. A pawn can be as strong as a queen even stronger in mating positions. Let us look at this: nights before bishops (because you don't want to loose your bishop early)--Don't bring her out too quickly (because you don't want your queen attacked); Yet both rules have been broken to create powerful and stylistic play.
Knights before bishops isnt really to do with losing your bishops. It's primarily because you and your opponent already know where you want to put your knights, whereas depending on how the play develops your bishop has the choice of 2, 3, or even 4 good squares. Also, you should strive to do more than simply develop pieces, but also to make threats and force your opponent to defend against these. In order to make and defend threats in the opening without getting a bad position, usually you have to develop your knights before your bishops.
I'm going to miss all of you. I have to step away. Sorry for being so stupid here. Peace. Be cool and stay sharp Rael..