I'd have to see where the other pieces are before I choose.
Other pieces are irrelevant, since the question was about a structure, not the position as a whole.
So you mean which structure is more aesthetically appealing?
None is better of course, without putting the other pieces onboard. Whoever said "other pieces are irrelevant" has still to read lesson number two.
The above position is a boring draw, so it doesn't count for anything.
...and I bet that people "thinking" like that can destroy a position, no matter if their knight is placed on e5, or a1.
Sure, a knight is *generally* better placed on e5 than on a1, and even that has its exceptions. Now tell me whether a bishop is *generally* better on g3 or g2.
Please, don't post him complex problems, MaartenSmit...
Attacked by what?
Oh sorry, I forgot that even a traded piece can sneakingly attack from the outer space...
...h5-h4 is a real threat, you know...
Yeah, also Be5, and when white plays f3, he loses the bishop.
Now you enlightened me, thanks a lot.
In other word you will say that white King is saver. Since as the game goes on, the Bishop will leave its current position or maybe make an exchange. And f pawn will move (f2-f4 / f7-f5) and make black King a little more vulnerable. Cmiiw.
I would have to say that black's structure is the design of some openings and takes 2 moves to accomplish as part of the opening. Whereas white's position is not necessarily the result of design but rather the result of position, pressure and tactics (and takes 3 moves at minimum to achieve).
One (black) is part of a strategy, and the other (white) a result of tactics.
Sorry for my misinterpretation, since my english isn't very good. Can you explain me the difference of "part of a strategy" and "a result of tactics". Furthermore the difference of "stategy" and "tactics" ?
This is the very best I can do to illiterate remarks.