I am going to tell you a "secret". A piece's power is determined by how many squares it can control.
In theory only. In practice, a piece's power is determined by how many squares it *does* control. No piece is worth more than the task it is fulfilling at the given moment in time. There are worthless Queens and game-winning pawns. There. I've just gone dogmatic. Meaning I'm just as bad as every one else in this thread :D
my god....
So called advantages like queen pawn major , pass pawn , no double or no isolate pawn etc. why they are advantages because if you hold them , and survive into the open end game, they will bring you chances to win instead of draw or lose.
so you have two bishops , hold them into end game, B+B vs K is better than B+N vs K or NN vs K. B+B + pawns is nicer than N+B + pawns or N+N+pawns because you have no weakness and you can swich sides easily. and of course some time you B can just lock your opponents‘ N into prison .
So maybe in closed or some sort of middle games bishops can be underestimated , but no advantage is usually advantage in all games and all positions , no matter bishops or queen pawn major or no double pawns ...
You have to consider how many squares pieces can potentally control as well. Otherwise if we consider the initial position only knights and pawns can move and all other pieces are worthless.But I guess you guys doesn't mind starting a game with only knights, king and pawns against a full army since the you have more moves at your disposal (You have 22 possible moves while your opponent only has 20).
I am going to tell you a "secret". A piece's power is determined by how many squares it can control.
In theory only. In practice, a piece's power is determined by how many squares it *does* control. No piece is worth more than the task it is fulfilling at the given moment in time. There are worthless Queens and game-winning pawns. There. I've just gone dogmatic. Meaning I'm just as bad as every one else in this thread :D
No way. This approach is too simplicistic.
There are other things that have to be taken into account, for example how the piece coordinates with friendly and enemy units.
Some examples:
Queen + Knight is notoriously more of an attacking force than Queen + Bishop, both against open king and against castled king. The ability of the knight to jump over other stuff cannot be underestimated (his checks are unblockable). The knight is the only piece that can attack the enemy Queen without being automatically counterattacked. This is a great strength.
"The great master places a Knight on e5; checkmate follows by itself."
Tartakower
¨Bishop takes knight. This is how GMs beats IMs.¨
Sune Berg Hansen
It depends on position and tactical combinations. Normally, bishop is better in open position and knight is better in closed position.
Tired of this. Just played a terribly closed game, where the knights were stuck in their half, not able to do anything. My bishop dominated the opponent's camp.
knights can beat one bishop on its opposite colour square, immune from the bishop, and in a commanding position
It depends on position and tactical combinations. Normally, bishop is better in open position and knight is better in closed position.
Tired of this. Just played a terribly closed game, where the knights were stuck in their half, not able to do anything. My bishop dominated the opponent's camp.
In closed positions is perfectly fine to invest even 4 or 5 moves to improve the position of one knight.
Either your opponents didn't think of that, or his knights where imprisoned out of the game: that is a different strategical concept.
It is getting to where you cannot distinguish troll from stupid.
Safest to assume troll, and roll with it.
Oh, and knights are better than bishops and rooks. Ever seen a rook move like a L?
knights and bishops each have their advantages in various positions ,so it is dangerous to be too dogmatic one way or the other
great advice to roll with the troll!
It depends on the position. Don't be dogmatic.
That's what Spassky answered when he was asked which he prefered, chess or sex.
xxvalakixx wrote:
I am going to tell you a "secret". A piece's power is determined by how many squares it can control. If a piece controls more square than another one, that piece is stronger. It works in general, and in a real game situation as well. Generally a queen is stronger than all other pieces. Because the queen controls more squares. The rook is stronger than a knight or a bishop generally, because it controls more squares. Pieces are stronger than pawns, because they control more squares. And yes, in general a bishop is stronger than a knight, because it controls more squares. If you compare, in the center the bishop controls 13 squares, a knight controls 8 squares. So it is unquestionable that in GENERAL the bishop is stronger. (By the way, the rook anywhere controls 14 squares, so in general the bishop is closer to a rook than to a knight in activity)
However, it is only in general. In a real game, pieces activity is still determined by how many squares it controls. The example above is very good. It is true that the rook is stronger than a bishop in general, but in that situation, the rook controls only 2 squares, while the bishop controls, 10 squares, so the bishop is much stronger there.
in the center, a bishop can also control 14 squares like a rook...
ViktorHNielsen wrote:
¨Bishop takes knight. This is how GMs beats IMs.¨
Sune Berg Hansen
Who's piece is taking who's ? I find that can work for or against you, on either side...
ON an empty board a rook controls the same number of squares no matter what square it is on. No other piece has this property.
Therefore (continued on page 6 of this thread)
We can test the two pieces out by replacing every piece on the first and eighth ranks except the king in the starting position with knights for white and bishops for black. Then, after a series of well-played games, we calculate the superior piece by tallying wins, losses, and draws.
Who wants to play a forum N vs. B game with me?
Reminds me of one of my favourite chess quotes:
"The Bishop is stronger, but the Knight is more cunning."
Anyhoo, we have different pieces good at different things under different sets of circumstances. The second you get dogmatic, you lose objectivity and may well miss the point entirely :P