Bishop vs. Rook?
Sort:
0
#23
FifthDimension wrote:
So what? It proves that it doesn't require poor play from black
No, it doesn't. It proves your opponents are very inexperienced.
also this is the fried liver attack.
With you'll notice, no Knight fork.
FifthDimension wrote:
So what? It proves that it doesn't require poor play from black also this is the fried liver attack.
How is the game you posted in #21 NOT poor play from Black?
I beat a couple inexperienced opponents yes but I beat a 1400 which I wouldn't quite call inexperienced.
-waller- wrote:
FifthDimension wrote:
So what? It proves that it doesn't require poor play from black also this is the fried liver attack.
How is the game you posted in #21 NOT poor play from Black?
It's not really that was just an example.
The 1400 might have been overrated, and even if they weren't inexperienced, it was still POOR PLAY. Or do GMs regularly get caught out by such old tricks?
Nicely put Shakaali, very clear. (post #12 if you missed it)
As for 21, black played poorly, if for no other reason than he missed a turn (only moved 3 times to white's 5). Admittedly, though, i have trouble with that opening and am never quite satisfied with my position afterwards. But i am able to avoid the fork.
FifthDimension wrote:
So what? It proves that it doesn't require poor play from black also this is the fried liver attack.
Then why doesn't everyone play this opening, whatever its name may be? Seems to me if white has a guarantee of forking queen and rook why the hell would he play anything else?
ivandh: you apparently missed the new opening 1. axa8 - queen in a previous thread. obviously, it is a lot easier to take the rook and gain a queen on the first move rather than making 5 moves for the automatic fork. what does the five moves get you, also winning a pawn, pft, i'd take the extra queen.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/new-openings-i-created - see post 18 for the new opening.
Hmm, there is some interesting theory to that opening, but I still can't see anything better than 2. Ke2.
ivandh wrote:
2 rooks can checkmate on their own. 2 bishops can't.
If you mean without the king. yeah butbe more clear
Another paradox of chess is that two pawns is usually a winning advantage but you can't chckmate your opponent if your opponenet plays perfectly with a rook versus bishop or knight.
ivandh wrote:
FifthDimension wrote:
So what? It proves that it doesn't require poor play from black also this is the fried liver attack.
Then why doesn't everyone play this opening, whatever its name may be? Seems to me if white has a guarantee of forking queen and rook why the hell would he play anything else?
Haha nicely said Ivan. I normally play this opening against beginners for a easy win. Heres a basic defense.
Although the main line is:
But lets get back to the topic of Bishop vs. Rook
[COMMENT DELETED]
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
So what? It proves that it doesn't require poor play from black also this is the fried liver attack.