Yes, but in the first diagram the B=R and it is supposed to be B<R mathematically.
Bishop vs. Rook?
Yes, but in the first diagram the B=R and it is supposed to be B
What's your point? That doesn't change the fact that your statement "the Bishop is Stronger here" is wrong.
Yes, but in the first diagram the B=R and it is supposed to be B
What's your point? That doesn't change the fact that your statement "the Bishop is Stronger here" is wrong.
I already posted the answer, the B is stronger because its supposed to be weaker buts is equal, get it yet?
I already posted the answer, the B is stronger because its supposed to be weaker buts is equal, get it yet?
OK, I think so. I thought you meant that it's stronger than the Rook in the diagram, not that it's stronger than what it usually is compared to a Rook. You could have made that a bit clearer.
"Why is a bishop worth less than a rook?" ... A reasonable question. If you put a bishop and a rook in the middle of the board they control the same amount of space. Bishops can be brought into the action quickly with the fianchetto but rooks have to wait till the endgame. Bishops are not commonly forked but rooks are, there are whole entire openings just devised to forking the queen and the rook. So I was wondering why are bishops worth three points but rooks worth five? PLEASE SAY WHY you think rooks are worth two points more then bishops. Thanks for taking the time to read. --FifthDimension
Because a rook can eventually (in only 2 moves, max) reach any square on the board (without other pieces in the way of course). A bishop can never reach half the squares (it is either a light-squared bishop only, or a dark-squared bishop only).
Furthermore, these have been stated before already:
1) A rook can hold a barrier (either rank or file) that the opposing king can't cross. A bishop can't do this.
2) Can force checkmate with lone rook and king. Not possible with lone bishop and king.
As far as two bishops versus two rooks, if it takes two bishops just to cover all the squares on the board, and it only takes one rook to do so, obviously two rooks > two bishops. Also the two rooks are powerful and capable enough to force checkmate by themselves, while the two bishops still need to be supported by their king.
Who wins? I know its 2B v 1R but it still is worth looking at.
It's just a draw.
For K + 2B vs K + R :
K+B vs K is draw. K + R vs K+B is draw too with correct play. So Black only needs to sacrifice the rook on a bishop to draw. On White's side, the defense is even more easy.
For K + 2R vs K + 2B , the rooks' player wins. The method is to force the exchange of a rook vs the 2 bishops by 1- forcing the king to the edge , 2 - pinning one of the bishop. However, it requires precise play, and probably more than 50 moves with some comlex beginnig positions.
Although the main line is:
That's not the "main line", that's a different opening. The fried liver attack is a variation of the "two knights defense". What you're are calling the main line is a different (but related) opening called the "Giuoco Piano". Sometimes called the "italien game". I guess ignorance is bliss.
I got tired of reading all of the post by people trying to help you while you stubbornly ignored the truth of what they're telling you so I didn't read all of the posts. Just in case no one said this yet:
K vs K +B = DRAW
K vs K+R = WIN
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
The first game is a draw after Bh5 and the second white wins after Rh8.
Making what I said correct.