No wafflemaster. Telling the truth (that they are cowards) is not insulting those who are rude on blog boards. Their name-calling behaviour has to be recognised for what it is. I would not say anything here that I would not say to someone in person -- or have published on the front page of a newspaper.
Please provide the data you use to support your generalization about these people.
Otherwise I'm simply recognizing you for what you're doing.
Wafflemaster. None of my comments related to anything you said. It was Helltank who referred to the origination of this thread as "troll and hallucinogen" And I think this is what the originator was prob referring to. Robust criticism is fine. Calling someone a troll and intimating they are hallucinating is not.
I can agree with that :)
Cool. Intimating is actually a word.
Kights are sometimes weaker than bishops.....
This is the way I see it. Bishops are like snipers that like to take shots from long range whereas Knights are the melee, knife fighters that like to get into the action close up.
Advantages of the Knight over a Bishop:
- They are the best piece to blockade passed pawns as they do not lose any of their power whilst blockading
- They can go on both colours whereas Bishops can only go on one colour. unless you have both bishops.
- Given a central outpost knights can dominate bishops where the bishop is on a different coloured square to the knight.
It really depends on the position to determine the value of the pieces. I once remember catching the train home from a tournament when one of the fellow participants and I got into a conversation about our games. He was a Kings Gambit fanatic and told me about this line in the Kings Gambit where White has 2B for 2R but in the position the 2B are better than the 2R.
Example of knight beating a bishop positionally:
Kights are sometimes weaker than bishops.....
This is the way I see it. Bishops are like snipers that like to take shots from long range whereas Knights are the melee, knife fighters that like to get into the action close up.
Advantages of the Knight over a Bishop:
- They are the best piece to blockade passed pawns as they do not lose any of their power whilst blockading
- They can go on both colours whereas Bishops can only go on one colour. unless you have both bishops.
- Given a central outpost knights can dominate bishops where the bishop is on a different coloured square to the knight.
It really depends on the position to determine the value of the pieces. I once remember catching the train home from a tournament when one of the fellow participants and I got into a conversation about our games. He was a Kings Gambit fanatic and told me about this line in the Kings Gambit where White has 2B for 2R but in the position the 2B are better than the 2R.
Very good comparison. Wish I had thought of it myself.
Knights jump over pieces, tricky as hell to stop because of it's ability to attack 8 squares, makes beautiful pins, and to top it off it's a freaking horse.
Knights jump over pieces, tricky as hell to stop because of it's ability to attack 8 squares, makes beautiful pins, and to top it off it's a freaking horse.
I'm sold.
The value of a piece depends on the position. But sometimes a knight is infinitely more valuable than a bishop.
The value of a piece depends on the position. But sometimes a knight is infinitely more valuable than a bishop.
I did say that the knight's value depends on the position. I'm not disagreeing to that.
My statement was built on the scenario of pawnless endgames (or endgames with one or two pawns. Even then, it depends on where the pawns are), therefore most corresponding to "in general".
K+2B is always better against K or K+P than K+2N vs. K or K+P or any number of disconnected enemy pawns.
Plus, you can force a checkmate with K+2B vs. K.
As that black knight on your board, I can say that I can be quite useful. For example, when I threaten a piece, this can be done without putting me in immediate danger. Us knights prove ourselves to be very strong defenders and attackers, particularly in the opening and midgame. I surely deserve to be as highly rated as the bishop, if not more. (I made this username to take advantage of it like this. XD)
knights are worth 7 in bughouse
Knights are worth about 3 pawns as and estimate. I think that a knight vs bishop, depends on the position. If the position is closed, knights tend to be better, but if the position is open, often bishops are better.
Actually it seems that in the opening the N's mobility is second only to the Q
| MOBILITY OF THE PIECES | |||
| MOVES | |||
| .6-25 | .26-45 | .46-65 | |
| Queen | 6.6 | 7 | 9.6 |
| Rook | 2.6 | 4.3 | 5.1 |
| Bishop | 3.1 | 3.5 | 3.8 |
| Knight | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
Actually it seems that in the opening the N's mobility is second only to the Q
MOBILITY OF THE PIECES MOVES .6-25 .26-45 .46-65 Queen 6.6 7 9.6 Rook 2.6 4.3 5.1 Bishop 3.1 3.5 3.8 Knight 3.3 3.3 3.31. The knight never changes.
2. It's apparently the worst piece both in the middlegame and the endgame.
Therefore, my first statement is right.
Just for the rest of the commentors:
I'm not disagreeing to anything that you have already stated. I am an educated chess player; I would know.
I'm just stating my own opinion based on my experience.
And I did say "in general"; a lone bishop beats a lone knight, and a bishop can always tame any mighty horse in an open position.
All of you misunderstood my statement, which was made ignoring the numerous conditions which I acknowledge.
Actually it seems that in the opening the N's mobility is second only to the Q
MOBILITY OF THE PIECES MOVES .6-25 .26-45 .46-65 Queen 6.6 7 9.6 Rook 2.6 4.3 5.1 Bishop 3.1 3.5 3.8 Knight 3.3 3.3 3.31. The knight never changes.
2. It's apparently the worst piece both in the middlegame and the endgame.
Therefore, my first statement is right.
you will be a goddamn grandmaster. thats what you wanted ????
a suggestion to Vulpes:
study
- "Rethinking the Chess Pieces" by Soltis
- "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" by Watson
- minor piece endgames (including NQEs like 2B v. B+N, which can be found in "Practical Endgame Play -- Beyond the Basics" by Flear)
That should give you a rather nuanced view of the relative strengths of the minor pieces.