Good Bishop vs. Bad Bishop?
Sort:
May 18, 2018
0
#2
I too have heard that term “good bishop versus bad bishop” not sure what is what but if one has more options to move than the other I guess it’s a better bishop.
May 18, 2018
0
#3
LouStule wrote:
I too have heard that term “good bishop versus bad bishop” not sure what is what but if one has more options to move than the other I guess it’s a better bishop.
No, good bishop and bad bishop has nothing to do with the number of legal moves the bishop has. It has to do with where your own pawns are in relation to the Bishop. Good or Bad and Active or Inactive are not the same thing.
Take the 4 diagrams below. The first is a Bad, Inactive Bishop. The second is a Bad but Active bishop. The third is a Good, Inactive Bishop. The fourth is a Good, Active Bishop. Sometimes bad bishops are critical to keep. For example, in the French Defense, the Bad Bishop on c8 or d7 is needed to cover e6.
May 18, 2018
0
#4
In this exaggerated example. White has a "bad" bishop, while black has a "good" bisho.
Whites bishop is limited to 3 squares, while blacks bishop has access to many squares.
Whites pawns are on the same color as blacks bishop, which is not good.
but but I saw the term bad bishop on the queen side bishop right at the opening. and it still confuses me. maybe most of the time it turns out that way???? dunno.
May 18, 2018
0
#6
ThrillerFan wrote:
LouStule wrote:
I too have heard that term “good bishop versus bad bishop” not sure what is what but if one has more options to move than the other I guess it’s a better bishop.
No, good bishop and bad bishop has nothing to do with the number of legal moves the bishop has. It has to do with where your own pawns are in relation to the Bishop. Good or Bad and Active or Inactive are not the same thing.
Take the 4 diagrams below. The first is a Bad, Inactive Bishop. The second is a Bad but Active bishop. The third is a Good, Inactive Bishop. The fourth is a Good, Active Bishop. Sometimes bad bishops are critical to keep. For example, in the French Defense, the Bad Bishop on c8 or d7 is needed to cover e6.
whoah slow down. please explain to everyone why #2 isn't winning for black because of the a2 and g2 pawns
May 19, 2018
0
#7
This is an example from the book I am reading on strategy intuition. The author explains as below:
" In our first example, White's dark-squared bishop is permanently bad, as the doubled c-pawns and the blocked f4- pawn form a cage. The light-squared bishop is only on a bad square, but it will get stuck protecting c4 if White does not play actively. So 16.Bxf5!? is White's best bet."
So, my understanding is the permanently weak bishop will be traded, always. The badly placed Bishop will be moved to another square, of course.
May 19, 2018
0
#8
DeirdreSkye wrote:
In this position from the world championship Svidler called both bishops bad and said that Black played h6 to prevent white from exchanging his bishop.
If everything you say is correct why Svidler called Be3 "bad bishop"(note that Gustafson agreed)?
Obviously your theory doesn't explain this.
What you say is what we tell in the chess club in total beginners. It's very superficial and they will learn it's not true 3 months later.
I totally agree that both Bishop are bad but it seems to me that Black's one is a bit better because when it moves to g5 for any reason, it is guarded by a pawn, whereas White's one is guarded by a Queen. Also, Black pawn chain is a night mare to White Bishop.
Sincerely 
May 19, 2018
0
#9
DeirdreSkye wrote:
mini_VAN wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
In this position from the world championship Svidler called both bishops bad and said that Black played h6 to prevent white from exchanging his bishop.
If everything you say is correct why Svidler called Be3 "bad bishop"(note that Gustafson agreed)?
Obviously your theory doesn't explain this.
What you say is what we tell in the chess club in total beginners. It's very superficial and they will learn it's not true 3 months later.
I totally agree that both Bishop are bad but it seems to me that Black's one is a bit better because when it moves to g5 for any reason, it is guarded by a pawn, whereas White's one is guarded by a Queen. Also, Black pawn chain is a night mare to White Bishop.
Sincerely
Well , the point is that many things must be taken into consideration. Evaluating a position is not mathematics. You don't count the pawns that are on the same color with the bishop and you reach the conlusion that the bishop is "bad".In fact it is absolutely irrelevant. You have to take into consideration everything.From the placement of the other pieces to concrete lines. It's not the pawns that create a bad piece. It's the bad moves that create a bad piece. I'm saying that because many say "I don't play Queen's gambit declined because the bishop is bad". The bishop can never be bad if you haven't done something wrong!And if the bishop becomes bad it's not the opening's fault , it's not the bishop's fault, it's your fault!
I am trying to digest your words. Thanks for your comments on my thoughts. I appreciate a lot 
May 19, 2018
0
#10
I find this all very judgmental. I don't think it's fair to bash the bishop.
May 20, 2018
0
#11
The labeling should be "attacking bishop" and "trading bishop". If people think a bishop is "bad" they might think they are losing, which probably isn't correct. But if they think that way, losing is more likely to happen because they will stop looking for ways to trade off the "bad" bishop.
While reading a chess problem, part of the caption for it was "Black has played quite carelessly and traded off his important dark-squared bishop." What makes a bishop important in the opening? Does one important bishop mean that the other isn't important? If it helps you understand the context, here is the position:
I'm assuming that black recently traded his dark squared bishop for white's queen-knight at c3.