My theory is that bishops move faster across the board in open positions, and can pin, and in rare occasions, fork, but are bad if they are blocked by their own pawns. Knights are fork masters, but they can't pin, and are better almost always in closed positions, as they can jump. But they have a limited range. Overall, bishops are better. But don't always think that. And don't think that taking both his knights can prevent any forks.
I like how he says 'my theory' when stating and absolute bleeding fact. He should publish a book and call it 'My Theory'. Maybe I will buy 'My Theory' and it will replace My System on the book shelf...
what tliu1222 doesn't realize, due to extremely weak chess knowledge is that if you eliminate both knights, there is a 0% chance of a fork occurring over the course of the rest of the game.
source: a simulation in which trillions of games were played starting from positions/openings where both knights were removed.
ironically, the dependent queen spooned her strong protective, providing, better-at-chess king. but no forking.
What about a pawn fork? Doesn't sound right to me...
Or a queen fork, rook fork, or bishop fork
In must win situations, I choose the bishop.
No more tracking for me.
chasm seems to know his forks, but can he identify these?