Wafflemaster. Sorry can't agree. Bishops and knights have different characteristics and I think it is wrong to put one ahead of the other arbitarily. For example two bishops at the end game are a powerful combination. But a lone bishop is deprived of half of the squares on the board. A lone knight is much more desirable than a lone bishop -- to me.
KNIGHTS ARE TOO UNDERVALUED
Sort:
ash369 wrote:
Wafflemaster. Sorry can't agree. Bishops and knights have different characteristics and I think it is wrong to put one ahead of the other arbitarily. For example two bishops at the end game are a powerful combination. But a lone bishop is deprived of half of the squares on the board. A lone knight is much more desirable than a lone bishop -- to me.
But you don't with what or why...
ash369 wrote:
Wafflemaster. Sorry can't agree. Bishops and knights have different characteristics and I think it is wrong to put one ahead of the other arbitarily. For example two bishops at the end game are a powerful combination. But a lone bishop is deprived of half of the squares on the board. A lone knight is much more desirable than a lone bishop -- to me.
I wasn't arguing a point, I was giving information... there's nothing to debate because what I said is a fact.
However you seem to misunderstand, I didn't say whether one was more valuable than the other. Any half-serious player understands a piece has no value in a vacuum. It's entirely dependant on the specific position where the piece exists and is evaluated primarily by mobility and threats on either king.
Troll+hallucinogen=this thread
ash369 wrote:
Wafflemaster. Sorry can't agree. Bishops and knights have different characteristics and I think it is wrong to put one ahead of the other arbitarily. For example two bishops at the end game are a powerful combination. But a lone bishop is deprived of half of the squares on the board. A lone knight is much more desirable than a lone bishop -- to me.
Good point, which I have forgotten to make.
Yes, bishops are much better group attackers than knights, who are better as solo attackers, are. It also depends on the target, but generally, group attackers beat isolated pieces and solo attackers beat scattered pieces.
It is probably due to my playing style that has lead me to think that bishops are better than knights in general.
You can correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, circumstancially), but none of you have any reason to insult my way of reasoning and thinking.
while a single bishop can only reach half the squares on a chessboard, knights have some serious disadvantages as well. In particular, knights can take several moves to go from one side of the board to the other, and also they have the potential to be cornered. In addition, knights can't triangulate like a king or bishop can. For this reason I consider a bishop to be somewhat superior to a knight, even when not part of a bishop pair.
thank you for acknowledging my reasoning, xitvono.
hahaha well you work with what ur comftable with babe ;)
I'm a boy (although I wish I weren't).
Quite so Vulpes.
Don't worry about the insults. I found long ago that all blog threads are infested with guys waiting to pounce with insults on anyone. In real life they are cowards and would never insult you to your face. But on the Internet they are fearless.
VULPES_VULPES wrote:
ash369 wrote:
Wafflemaster. Sorry can't agree. Bishops and knights have different characteristics and I think it is wrong to put one ahead of the other arbitarily. For example two bishops at the end game are a powerful combination. But a lone bishop is deprived of half of the squares on the board. A lone knight is much more desirable than a lone bishop -- to me.
Good point, which I have forgotten to make.
Yes, bishops are much better group attackers than knights, who are better as solo attackers, are. It also depends on the target, but generally, group attackers beat isolated pieces and solo attackers beat scattered pieces.
It is probably due to my playing style that has lead me to think that bishops are better than knights in general.
You can correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, circumstancially), but none of you have any reason to insult my way of reasoning and thinking.
Realizing that the relative values of pieces change = good. As you say the loss of a knight can be compensated for by weakening the opponent's king when you can attack.
However generalizing this realization to knights are worth no more than a pawn is flawed reasoning and self-contradictory (otherwise you woudln't have used the idea of compensation).
:o i didnt insult you, and theres nothing wrong if you don't want to be a boy :) That's all good hon.
MinxVishous wrote:
:o i didnt insult you, and theres nothing wrong if you don't want to be a boy :) That's all good hon.
I'll bet that is a very minority opinion.
ash369 wrote:
Quite so Vulpes.
Don't worry about the insults. I found long ago that all blog threads are infested with guys waiting to pounce with insults on anyone. In real life they are cowards and would never insult you to your face. But on the Internet they are fearless.
It's funny to me that you comfort perceived unjustified insults by grouping those people together and insulting them yourself.
Quite so waffllemaster.
Don't worry about the insults. I found long ago that all threads are infested with guys waiting to pounce with insults on anyone offering constructive criticism. In real life they are hypocrites and would never do that to your face. But on the internet they are fearless.
mrguy888 wrote:
MinxVishous wrote:
:o i didnt insult you, and theres nothing wrong if you don't want to be a boy :) That's all good hon.
I'll bet that is a very minority opinion.
Either way, it's funny that the profile page and picture suggest a girl, but he's so quick to point out he's a boy.
My brother would always feign female status in games like world of warcraft because it was easier to join groups, make friends, get free items, etc (he said).
come to new zealand, most people are accepting :P
waffllemaster wrote:
ash369 wrote:
Quite so Vulpes.
Don't worry about the insults. I found long ago that all blog threads are infested with guys waiting to pounce with insults on anyone. In real life they are cowards and would never insult you to your face. But on the Internet they are fearless.
It's funny to me that you comfort perceived unjustified insults by grouping those people together and insulting them yourself.
Hypocrisy will never die.
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.
Dude i could write you a million reasons why your reasoning is absurd. Give me 2 knights, 6 pawns a rook and a queen and i will win your 6p, 2B, 1Q, 1R easy, just because you wont understand what to do:) Even your material is slighty stronger...
If you want one of the million reasons - knights can go back, pawns cant. And knight value is from 3 to 2.6 depending on a master who analizes. Theres a lot of books about it... Also for my knights ppl sacrifice rooks...:)
Um... that's NOT what I meant. Knight can go backwards, sure, but the fact that pawns can eventually turn into queens compensates for their weakness.
By the way, you wouldn't take a heavily defended knight with a rook, nor would you take a heavily defended pawn, because they rarely pose a threat to me should my opponent possess one.
However, you sometimes need to sacrifice your rook for a heavily protected bishop, because it might be a big tactical or positional threat, or assisting in a checkmate. That, I can comprehend.
Just so you know, exchange sacs for knights are much more common than exchange sacs for bishops. In fact off the top of my head I don't know any line that contains a RxB sac but for example RxN is a thematic and common move in some Scicilian and French lines, and played at the highest level.