which is better option to keep between knight or bishop ? (both sides are equal)

WHAT DO YOU MEAN TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW

ITS LONG ENOUGH AS IT IS

ITS LONG ENOUGH IF IT WAS JUST A QUARTER OF THAT SIZE

anyhoo

too long

        Rather long, yes, but I reckon a pretty good analysis of the relative strengths of the pieces.

But more importantly, can anyone become a grandmaster?

yes

if they are good enough.

Today, Levon Aronian showed that a knight can prevail against a bishop. I annotated the game lightly here while it was taking place: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2014/01/aronian-nakamura-tata-steel-2014.html.

The official video has some postgame analysis by Aronian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ajoM2OFGQ

when pawns on both sides,the bishop.when pawns on one of the sides the knight has more power.simple rule and almost always correct

But not correct today in Amsterdam.

panagiotis_p wrote:

when pawns on both sides,the bishop.when pawns on one of the sides the knight has more power.simple rule and almost always correct

_____________________

panagiotis_p wrote:

when pawns on both sides,the bishop.when pawns on one of the sides the knight has more power.simple rule and almost always correct

26 hours ago · Quote · #91

Ziryab

panagiotis_p wrote:

when pawns on both sides,the bishop.when pawns on one of the sides the knight has more power.simple rule and almost always correct

But not correct today in Amsterdam.

_________________________

Amsterdam is a beautiful city. My sister and I have visited there several times. So, has "Vincent Vega", our man in Amsterdam.

There are 4factors that you neglected to mention in your posts above:

A. Positions with pawns on both sides of the board

1. N OUTPOST Established

a. outpost square opposite color of B

1. In the position with pawns on both sides of the board. If the side with the N can post the N on a central square (preferably a square whose color is opposite that of the B) and the N is defended by one of its own pawns and cannot be driven from the outpost by an enemy pawn; the side with the N can in most cases hold a draw.

b. If the N's central square outpost is of the SAME color as the B, is defended by one of its own pawns, and cannot be driven from the outpost square by an enemy pawn, then the position is more iffy for the side with the N because the side with the B can at an opportune position in the game exchange it's B for the N (a stationary target, the N, is a prisoner on its outpost square of necessity to keep the position balanced/equal)

transposing into a winning or won K and pawn endgame. By the same token the side with the B must be ever wary of the side with N, exchanging N for B and transposing into a winning or won K and pawn endgame-- this exchange is more difficult to execute at the right time as the B can remain on squares that are just out of reach for the N, also if Ns outpost square is the same color as the B the N must abandon its outpost for the one that it takes to be on the correct color square in order for the capture of the to even be possible. As you can tell this is not only difficult to carry out. It requires that the side with the B make at least one sub-optimal move if not an outright error. Staying just out of reach is possible because the N must remain on its outpost square in order for the position to remain approximately equal. The technique of keeping the B just out of reach of the N is very clearly illustrated in the endgame K+Bs vs. K+N which is a forced win for the K+2Bs. This endgame also highlights the B's ability to gain or lose a tempo in the appropriate position and gain an advantage.

2. The B 's ability to gain or lose a tempo, in contrast to the N's INABILITY to gain or lose a tempo

a. This ability is an advantage that in combination with the technique described above makes it possible for the side with the B to transpose either by exchange, zugswang position or a combination of both can be use to transpose into a winning or won position.

b. These types of minor piece (B vs. N) endgames are named Fischer Endgames after a reclusive former World Champion GM Robert J. Fischer. He won many games based on the B's ability to gain or lose a tempo. It would be well worth your time to review and study GM Fischer's endgames of this type for a detailed demonstration of this winning technique.

Due to time constraints I will have to continue this post later this evening.

Aronian's knight kicked Nakamura's bishop's butt with pawns on both sides. You can make generalizations until the cows come home. I posted an actual game between the two best players in the world who are not Magnus Carlsen. That's as close to the truth as you are going to get.

Bishop vs. knight, as with all other imbalances, is a matter of concrete analysis of specific positions. Bishops will prevail more often, but no generalization will stand long. Only case by case concrete analysis is of any value.

Nakamura and his bishop should have been able to hold the position, but the bishop never had any hope of advantage. 

You didn't post the 3 chess engines' analysis which are consistent with my post. Also you will notice that my post was incomplete. One of the 4 factors that you omitted regarding position with pawns on both sides of the board is the number of files that separate the pawns on the kingside from the pawns on the queenside. When the number of files separating them is 4 files or more it definitely favors the B but the side with N should hold the draw. If the pawns are separated by 3 files or less the draw becomes much more likely, because the Ns distance in moves from one side to the other is much shorter, many times only one move.

http://www.chessdom.com/tata-steel-chess-masters-2014-live/

The above is the clickable analysis for Houdini, Komodo, and Stockfish after 38.b4 the engine Houdini optimal move is 38...Be1 with a 0.16 assessment 1/2 - 1/2

Komodo gives the same optimal move 38...Be1 with a 0.36 assessment 1/2-1/2

So does Stockfish 38...Be1 with a 0.56 assessment 1/2-1/2

If you had read closely you would have seen that I wrote the following:

"...A. Positions with pawns on both sides of the board

1. N OUTPOST Established

a. outpost square opposite color of B

1. In the position with pawns on both sides of the board. If the side with the N can post the N on a central square (preferably a square whose color is opposite that of the B) and the N is defended by one of its own pawns and cannot be driven from the outpost by an enemy pawn; the side with the N can in most cases hold a draw..."

If White is so in charge of the position after 38...Be1 why doesn't White play initiative/attack taking moves like 39.Ng7+, a5, or b5? With 39.Ng7+ White is forking the Black K at e6 and attacking the undefended Black pawn at h5 simultaneously. Does it win a pawn or is it a blunder that traps the N on the edge of the board? If you analyze the position by hand, which I recommend, or have a chess engine analyze it, you will see why. Why does White play instead 39.Ne3?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

        It is surely possible to refer to almost literally endless examples of game positions where either the bishop or knight was stronger or more influential. It has been stated above that generalisations will not stand up to actual example for long. True - but this is because an example can almost always be cited to refute a generalisation (Exception proving the rule, etc.).

        I consider the original question tailor made for generalisations. I believe it might be amenable to being resolved statistically, ie a survey, which would have to be very large and time consuming, of games played at various levels would probably yield results showing that either the bishop or knight was more important in a majority of instances.

        Other considerations, such as personal preference and the relative skill with which we all use the two pieces, would have to be borne in mind. As I have stated, I favour knights, but this is purely personal.

RG1951 wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

        It is surely possible to refer to almost literally endless examples of game positions where either the bishop or knight was stronger or more influential. It has been stated above that generalisations will not stand up to actual example for long. True - but this is because an example can almost always be cited to refute a generalisation (Exception proving the rule, etc.).

        I consider the original question tailor made for generalisations. I believe it might be amenable to being resolved statistically, ie a survey, which would have to be very large and time consuming, of games played at various levels would probably yield results showing that either the bishop or knight was more important in a majority of instances.

        Other considerations, such as personal preference and the relative skill with which we all use the two pieces, would have to be borne in mind. As I have stated, I favour knights, but this is purely personal.

__________________

You wrote:

"... (Exception proving the rule, etc.)...". The complete quote is - "there are no absolutes, and the exception proves the rule". In mathematics, the most rigorous language we have, this rule has been proven to be true due to infinity. In statistics infinity is dealt with by using a bound on probability of +- for error. The smaller the bounded area is for error, the more likely is the predicted/hypothesized result. In infinity the likelihood of the predicted result can only narrowed, but it can never be reduced to no error. However, in chess, we are dealing with a finite subject. The rule is very different when you are analyzing a finite set of probabilities. In other words, there is no paralysis of analysis due to infinity. The predicted result,given a finite set of factors, can be pinpointed. Finally, in chess there is a finite set of factors that make the principle of the "Minor Exchange" true. If even one of that finite set of factors is not present that condition negates the Minor Exchange ( a material advantage is gained by exchanging one's N for the opponent's B). It is similar to gaining the Exchange (a material advantage gained by exchanging one's B or N for the opponent's R) There are only 3 advantages in chess. They are: TIME, SPACE and MATERIAL.

knights and bishops have advs and disadvs. you choose which one you think is better.

brumtown wrote:

knights and bishops have advs and disadvs. you choose which one you think is better.

___________________

Yes, you have the indisputable right to choose. However, if you have a preference for Ns, the stronger your opposition the more susceptible you will be to willingly give the minor exchange mistakenly believing that you have gained advantage, when in reality you have given yourself a disadvantage which your stronger opponent will know the technique to exploit the disadvantage and you will lose a lot more games not understanding why you lost.

If there is N vs. B in an endgame the superior side is often EVEN more superior:-)

This is about the most moronic comment I've seen in quite a while.

The numbers that beginner, rookie chess books give of valuing a Pawn at 1, Knight at 3, Bishop at 3, Rook at 5, and Queen at 9, assume that nothing else is on the board, and the piece goes completely uninterfered with.

In any given position, a Bishop may be FAR SUPERIOR to the Knight, and in another the Knight may be FAR SUPERIOR to the Bishop.  There are other positions where a Bishop or Knight are far superior to a Rook!

Those numbers they give you are relative value and take no other critical considerations into factor, and they should only be used by players under 1600.

Knights, Bishops, and Rooks have their own problems.

Everybody knows about the Bad Bishop in relation to one's own pawn chain.  You place all your pawns on light squares, and your light-squared Bishop will have extremely limited scope.  Your dark-squared one will love you for what you've done!  Everybody also knows that a dark-squared Bishop will never see the light of day on the light squares.  That doesn't, however, mean that it can't have impact on the light squares.  For example, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3, White threatens 4.e4.  Black can use his dark-squared Bishop and play 3...Bb4 to do what?  Yes, that's right, defend a light square (e4) and prevent an e4 pawn push by White!

The Knight, as everybody knows, can reach all 64 squares on the board.  However, there are many problems that a Knight has that's not an issue for the Bishop.  Let's say you have a Bishop on b2 that is doing the "critical" job of controlling the e5-square.  A Black Knight comes along, and harasses your Bishop with ...Na4.  Can you move your Bishop out of harm's way and still control e5?  Of course!  Ba1 or Bd4.  Now let's reverse the rolls.  You have a Knight on d3 critically covering the e5 square.  A Black Bishop comes along, to a6, and threatens to trade itself for the Knight, as if White loses control of e5 in this hypothetical scenario, his whole position will collapse.  Can we save the Knight via moving it and still cover e5?  NO!  There is no way to move a Knight and have it continue to control any of the squares it previously controlled.  This is why a Knight needs an outpost.  They also take for ever to get from one side of the board to the other, which Bishops can get across quickly.

Even the Rook can have issues.  Let's say no pawn trades have occurred.  Therefore, no open files are available.  What's the Rook doing?  I create a hole on d4 to put a Black Knight on, and no pawns are traded away, and my Knight in many cases may be stronger than your useless Rook!

So it doesn't matter if you are a "beginner" or a "master", under no circumstances can you legitimately make such a blanket statement saying that one piece is better than another.  That's the biggest piece of baloney that I hear time and time again at this site!

I imagine that you are addressing my comments here since you are referencing the game that I brought into the discussion.

I did not address any of your four factors except to observe that generalizations will always have exceptions. Nor did I post any engine analysis. I am following all of Aronian's games in this event without reference to engine evaluations.

While the position after 37...h5 was on the board, I examined 38.Ng7+ (see my link above). After 38.Be1, which was not played in the game, 39.Ng7+ seems pointless.

In general, your observations and generalizations seem on the mark and useful. My only point is to caution against standing too strong on generalizations, and instead to examine each position concretely.

You seem to be doing that with the assistance of engines. I am leaving mine turned off.

My generalization is this: the stronger a player becomes, the more likely he or she will favor bishops most of the time.

Nonetheless, the pecularities of every unique position (and most positions that appear over the board are unique) require that generalizations themselves should always be regarded as suspect.

Ziryab wrote:

Yaroslavl wrote:

You didn't post the 3 chess engines' analysis which are consistent with my post. Also you will notice that my post was incomplete. One of the 4 factors that you omitted regarding position with pawns on both sides of the board is the number of files that separate the pawns on the kingside from the pawns on the queenside. [snip]

I imagine that you are addressing my comments here since you are referencing the game that I brought into the discussion.

I did not address any of your four factors except to observe that generalizations will always have exceptions. Nor did I post any engine analysis. I am following all of Aronian's games in this event without reference to engine evaluations.

While the position after 37...h5 was on the board, I examined 38.Ng7+ (see my link above). After 38.Be1, which was not played in the game, 39.Ng7+ seems pointless.

In general, your observations and generalizations seem on the mark and useful. My only point is to caution against standing too strong on generalizations, and instead to examine each position concretely.

You seem to be doing that with the assistance of engines. I am leaving mine turned off.

My generalization is this: the stronger a player becomes, the more likely he or she will favor bishops most of the time.

Nonetheless, the pecularities of every unique position (and most positions that appear over the board are unique) require that generalizations themselves should always be regarded as suspect.

_________________

You are right, of course. And, thank Caissa you are. It is that counterintuitive move in a position, finite in possibilities as we know it is, still able to surprise us with what appears to be an ugly move yet paradoxically beautiful for its irrefutable logic.

This discussion with you has reminded me of a position from a Fischer game that I saw many years ago in Chess Life & Review Magazine. As I recall it was the most beautiful move I have ever seen. It was in GM Larry Evans section where readers would write in to have Larry test their analysis on a correction to a position. In the case I read the reader's submission and the analysis was right and Larry confirmed it. I have not been able to find that particular magazine. Still searching for it.

The other thought this discussion brought to my mind is the endgame K+2B vs. K+N. Once again a thing of exquisite beauty to see how the Bs by reflecting off the edge of the board gain tempii and prevent the opponent with the K+N from setting up the (Kling-Horowitz) K-H position (fortress) or the pseudo K-H position, eventually separating the K and N from each other and either trapping the N on the edge of the board or checkmating the K.

By the way I think Nakamura knew that if Aronian was able to post his N on d5 from its position on f5 the game would be a dead draw. I think there is a distinct possibility that he analyzed 38...Be1. Saw that it permitted 39.Ne3, 39...a5 40.bxa5 bxa5 41.Kb5 Kf7 42.Nd5 and decided to go with the suboptimal 38...a5 and take his chances in the complications.

knights are ess predictable, but bishops can move farther