Nice. What's that called (besides a blood bath)?
Sir Galahad. haha
Knight Domination
Sort:
That knight was a real menace.
It looks like your opponent missed the attack on the queen, otherwise you'd have lost Sir Galahad, (awesome, naming your knights!) but what a cool game otherwise!
Wow! That was really nice. I will save this article..ha ha.
Nov 2, 2015
0
#6
I made a few mistakes in the endgame - where the knight does his work, but quite satisfying overall...
the knights are my favorite chess piece because they move differently than any other piece. However, Steinitzian theory tells us that 2 bishops are generally better than 2 knights... not sure i agree. Perhaps I will post a new article asking the question?
missjessica77 wrote:
the knights are my favorite chess piece because they move differently than any other piece. However, Steinitzian theory tells us that 2 bishops are generally better than 2 knights... not sure i agree. Perhaps I will post a new article asking the question?
My understanding is that two Bishops yeidl a synergy when working together...two Knights working together do not share that synergy...I made a post asking about that some time ago, and all the experts said that two Bishops equaled more than two Knights (generally). Perhaps the "experts" are wrong?
Your knight definitely had fun in that game. Just wait until you pull off a knight windmill. I pulled it off once in a correspondence game, but my opponent resigned when he realized what was going to happen. 
Well, you should refer to P.Romanovsky's "Middlegame" to know more about it. He writes that two bishops in themselves cannot be considered an advantage over two knights. Apart from that, GM Smyslov and the great Tchigorin also prefered two knights over two bishops. In other words, there is no conclusive evidence, position created and concrete analysis determine who's who.
When Bishops are blocked by pawn chains, or when the way into the enemy camp is mined, Knights being able to cover both squares alternately, non-linearly, definitely prove to be better intruders than bishops. Also in form of forward outposts, they are able to attack as well as come to defense quickly, thus negating their short-range disadvantage. But anyways, these are just usual observations. I don't think even Steinitz or any other great theorists were conclusively able to prove the statement, although bishops do have a certain preponderance most of the times.
I like this game a lot because it showcases the raw attacking power of a well-positioned knight. My brave kingside knight, Sir Galahad, almost single-handedly destroyed my opponents queen, both rooks, and dark square bishop. This was very fun to play indeed.