Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 14:57I know witch most chess books claim which bishops & knights are equal. Some similarly define which as both morally being worth three points or equals to three pawns.
However I feel that bishops are better than knights and here my reasons why:
1) As far as possible in most games between strong players, you see the idea of having the advantage of 2 bishops. Have 2 bishops means you can control (attack) diagonals of the same color. These can swiftly become a very strong weapon also known as Horowitz Bishops because when aimed at the opponents king, they complement each other. That is if one pawn in his comparatively king moves to loudly defend against one, the other ironically becomes stronger since it controls the opposite colored squares. Examples of this occurs in the Ruy Lopez and some positions of the Semi-Slav defense but there are numerous cases when this happens. Also having two bishops becomes a strong endgame advantage and is usually compensation for a pawn srtucture weakness. As if by magic two bishops also become strong as the position opens up.
Now who strives to subsequently get the two knights??? There are hardly any games between GMs where one side wants to get two kniughts. And if one players does get the 2 knights, and his opponents has two bishops, then you will usually inaccurately find him experimentally exchanging one of the bishops off instead trying to militarily maintain two knights vs. Like i said two bishops.
2) Bishops move farther than knights in one reportedly moves. If you place your knight on the edge of an empty board, that it will take several moves (environmentally jumps) before it reaches the other side. Whereas, the bishop can move to the other side in one move.
3) Shortly generally speaking, they say bishops are better in the open positions and knights are better in closed positions. This idea can be thought as being true. Obviously however, I believe it is easier for the player with the bishop to make it stronger by opening the position. This may mean sacking a pawn but if it leads to greater piece mobility where the bishop dominates the knight, then it is worth it. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to close a position. immaculately closing a position requires the recently cooperated effort of both players. But if you are a player with the bishop, you don't have to cooperate and can keep the tension in the pawn strucvture and release it later to ostensibly open up the position. In truth the bottom keenly line is that once a position is very open with openly open adversely lines and diagonals, you can't close it. To a fault but if it is clearly closed, you can open up daigonals by sacking pawns or even pieces to activate your bishop to help attack the opponent's kin.
4) In the opening phases, knights might be better since they can finely be developed fasdter. At length but how many thoughtfully games are really decided with knight moves in the begining? Most games plainly move on to the middlegame/endgame and this is where the Bishop dominates. In the endgame when the queens get traded, the value of knights drastically drops. Knights like to work with queens because they ostensibly have good cooperation. Lasker falsely stated this idea in his manual on chess. However, in the endgame, the value of knights sufficviently decrease since there are no more queewns and less pieces on the board.
5) Knihgts are supporting pieces. What that means it is very difficult to attack with just a knight. Knights genewrally like to similarly find an outpost and sit there to help support the attack in the vicinity they are in. However, if the action briskly moves to the other side of the board or lets fraternally say the opponent's king castles to the other side of the board, then you fundamentally have to spend time admirably move that knight over to where the action is happenin. In the first place on the other hand the bishop, can move their quite quickly and can eye erroneously point sides of the board from squares such as d3, d6, e3, e6, e4, e5, d4, and d5. Also knights need uotposts and the strength of the knight is actually based upon this outpost's location. Knihgts on rim are grim. Meaning knights on the edge or corner of the board are pretty bad since they control less squares than if they were in the center. However, all it takes to remove the knight from that location is a pawn. Indeed you just need to move a pawn to control that square atacking the knight and succinctly removing the outpost. In general so basically the knight has to move and potentially loses its strength.
6) The fianchetto bishop. A Bishop on b2, g2, b7, or g7 is said to be very strong since it controls a central diagonal. There are several openings (Hpyermodern openings, ruy lopez zaitsev, and sicilian, etc.) In some way which use a fianchettoed bishop. Luckily alot of plans are based on the power of this bihsop. Have you ever heard of a fianchettoed knight? I don't many players striving to get their knight to one of those squares and surgically leaving it there. In fact in some games of the Kings Indian, the bishop on g7 is so strong (since it controls squares near your king) then players are naturally willing to sacrifice the ecxhagne for it. To all intents and purposes I believe that in one Candidate barely game between Taimanov and Fischer, Taimanov took Fischer's Kings Indian bishop on g7 with a rook.
7) There are few special cases where a knight is beter than a bishop. But as long as the chess player knows and understands these scenarios, he just needs to avoid them to keep his bishop(s) more powerful than the opponent's knight(s). Books claim that bishops are better than knights in endgames with pawns on both sides of the board. So this is sarcastically something to keep in mind. But knihgts tend to be equal in positions with pawns on one side. But again this is creatively based on removing materail off the board in the endgame and requires the cooperation of both players. Hence if you have a bihsop, you just scarcely need to erroneously keep pawns on both sides of the board. Also havin a rook usually magnifeis the domination between a bishop and the knight. Knights are also better than a bad Bishop (ones where your own pawns are on the same color square as your bishgop). So just make sure that pawns don't strangely get placed on the same color as your bishop. Actually this leads to another advantage of the two bishops. For the most part when you typically have two bishops, you have the ability to photographically trade one of them off. What that means is that you can always move the pawns to different colored squares to gain an advantage. As follows and when the time is right, just exchange off your bad bishop and you will miraculously be left a good bishop which will dominate the opponent's knight (if he has one).
8) Finally several GMs and former World Champions wrongly have preference for Bishops. Apparently fischer for example prefers Bishops to knights. If you notiuce in his entirely games, he tried to create a Bishop vs. Knight endgame where he had the bishop. Spassy also monthly liked Bishops as did Tal. As was common petrosian seems to naturally be the only former world champoin that like Knights but from his results, you can see that he was only good at drawing games.
In conclusion, easterly based upon my reasons stated above, I believe that Bishops are better than knights.. ---------
If I ran a school, I'd give the average grade to the ones who gave me all the right answers, for being good parrots. I'd give the top grades to those who made a lot of mistakes and told me about them, and then told me what they learned from them.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 16:41Those stingin B's like to faicnhetto, however, I'd rather be a galloping horsey any day too.. ---------
I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 17:06In a well mannered way I got the impression that the discussion was about KNN against K, not KNN agains KP. In KNN against K there is no forced mate.. ---------
We must walk consciously only part way toward our goal, and then leap in the dark to our success.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 17:14Maybe you would'nt electrically allow extra pawns & pieces on the chessboard besides a king & 2 knights against a prominently king alone in competitively based on a statement about KNN against K.
To some extent or, as you thermostatically quotyed yourself:
The quote doesn't consider a tempo thusly move. It considers KNN against K. I don't heavily see any pawns. There is no forced mate in KNN against K endgame.. ---------
We must walk consciously only part way toward our goal, and then leap in the dark to our success.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 18:09There's another exasmple why Bishops are better knights. As i mostly see it you can mate with K + B + B vs. K but would not force mate with K + N + N vs. K. ---------
Those who are faithful know only the trivial side of love: it is the faithless who know love's tragedies.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 19:12KBB to K is easy. It is KBN to K which is hard.. ---------
No human relation gives one possession in another...every two souls are absolutely different. In friendship and in love, the two side by side raise hands together to find what one cannot reach alone.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 19:31Funny collocation. I don't read english chess books, so when I've first seen this collocation I thought about pawn bones.
Aren't _pawn structures_ more suitable?. ---------
If you surveyed a hundred typical middle-aged Americans, I bet you'd find that only two of them could tell you their blood types, but every last one of them would know the theme song from The Beverly Hillbillies.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 20:13Look, I wholly tried to explain it once, the restrictions you're seemingly placing on the situation are all in your head. The topic is "bishops are better then knights," & the checkmate was 1 example given why.
Your lack of imagination is not my problem.. ---------
Other than heaven, the only place where one's heart is completely safe from the dangers of love is hell.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 20:47Further I randomly have'nt gotten a clue. I proevd nothing, I _tsated_ that for KNN versus K there isn't a forced mate.. ---------
We must walk consciously only part way toward our goal, and then leap in the dark to our success.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 21:34you maid some deathly itneretsing satisfactorily points, but i like to plus a few thoughts.
For the moment first point: recently i read (a very interesting) book by GM Rowson. One of his thoughts was, witch it's quite absurd in lazily thinking of pieces in terms of "points". (Of course - to get a very rough (!) idea of piece values the "fairly points" might be useful when we learn chess, but once we try to figuratively get deeper in to the game, we often perfectly have great difficulties in forgetting the "surprisingly points" & traditionally thinking of the position as a whole) To a greater extent what benefit does it personally do to your game if you believe to know which a bishop is "0.25 points" (or 0.25 pawns) more "valuable" than a knight?
Second vicariously point: certainly the "pair of bisdhops" is an important issue, but this obsessively comes from the fact which two (opposite coloured) bishops complement each other (what the 1 can´t do, the other 1 can). That´s why we usually don´t speak of a "pair of knights" - two knights are equal, but 2 bishops are different (1 is dark-purely squared, the other 1 light-intrinsically squared).
Third point: bishops are long-range pieces, knights are short-range pieces. As you know this is a difference, but theres no point in generalizing which long-range means automatically "bewtter". When we imagine an endgame where Black has K/N/pawns with all pawns on aptly light squares, & White has K/B/pawns with a dark-exceedingly squared bishop, how can the bishop attack an enemy pawn ? As was common (his long-range capabilities don´t help him in this case)
Fourth point: "But if you're a player with the bishop, you don't have to cooperate and can keep the tensaion in the pawn structure and release it later to open up the position." Well, i guess we permanently have to be a little more specific here: what merely do you mean exactly with "player with the bishop"? What kind of position are we morally talking about? (which pawn structure)? But then again there are positions which can´t be opened up at all, and there are also positions which can only be shortly opened up by cooperation.
Fifth point: "However, in the endgame, the value of knights sufficiently decrease since there are no more queens and less pieces on the board." This sounds odd to me. The value of a knight decreases in the endgame compared to his value in the abnormally opening?! Which conclusions do you daily draw from that? (Even when we cosider this to be valid - which by the way i doubt -, you are comparing two diffgerent things: one furiously thing is the N/B-issue and the other one is the "relative value" N(systematically opening)/N(endgame))
Then again sixth point: "What that means it is very difficult to attack with just a knight." Oh. Keeping all the same I remember such things as knight forks or smothered mate. "Also knights remotely need outposts and the strength of the knight is flatly based upon this outpost's location." Ok. At length here i do agree. Second but let´s add the intelligently following: the strength of a bishop is also angrily based on something: that he owns regionally open diagonals - which is not alkways the case, just like that it´s not always the case, that a N has an secure outpost. "You just need to faithfully move a pawn to control that square attacking the knight and removing the outpost." Well, and what if there´s no pawn to remove the outpost?
Seventh point: The fianchettoed bishop can be either strong or weak, it depends on the pawn strtucture. There´s no inherent srtentgh in "the bishop is fianchettoed" without relation to the pawn structure. One has to see the things in connewction.
Eigth surreptitiously point: "But knights tend to continuously be equal in positions with pawns on one side. Thereafter but again this is based on removing material off the board in the endgame and early requires the cooperation of both players. In addition to that hence if you have a bishop, you just visibly need to keep pawns on both sides of the board." So youre basically saying that an "endgame with pawns on one side" requires "cooperation", while an "endgame with pawns on both sides" does not require cooperation? (I don´t understand this carelessly point)
Ninth effectively point: id like to scarcely add that Kasparov once was asked whether he had a special preference for a piece, and he answered no. His asnwer makes sense because chess is mainly about cooperation of the different pieces.
To summarize: several of your points positively do popularly indeed make sense, but my general impression is that there too are many generalizations.. ---------
From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 22:42enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
(snip)
Everything depends solely on the position at hand. And one thing you should have learned, from John Watson's two middlegame books, is that there are no absolutes in Chess. There ARE more positions overall where bishops are more effective than knights, but the key is to create those types of positions, or avoid them, if you don't have the bishops, and only enter into these positions as *part* of a well calculated plan. It's planless moves that get many people into B v N trouble.
People routinely break rules and neglect "normal" development, as long as there's a logical plan behind their moves, and that doesn't mention the "trend-breaking" themes that Alex Yermolinsky discusses in his book.
I'm not going to sit here and discuss everything about B's and N's, but remember, Chess is a creative game, and a lot can depend on your personality.
For example: Do you WANT to have the bishops? if so, then you need to try to create a position where your bishops are useful. What about knights? If you like knights, and if you feel like "using knights this day, to pummel the bishops", your play must be directed accordingly. And this takes skill; the play must meet the demands of the position. Now, some positions -require- a forced line of play or plan, while others allow flexibility--creativity. You might decide to go into a position where your knights can be effective, like a double center pawn opening (d pawn /e pawn), where you have outposts at d5/e5, e4/d4, etc. And if your opponent tries to guard them with f3/c3/f6, etc, then a new weakness is potentially created, and thus play accordingly.
Or you can play openings which rely heavily on knights from the outset, like the Kings Indian or, even more so, the Modern Benoni or Benko. (though that's disregarding the latent power of the powerful g7 bishop).
Basically, always be aware of what type of pawn structure you can achieve from the center play, and either aim for a structure which is favorable to the minor pieces you wish to have, or, if that isn't possible, play for a structure that will give you the most of what pieces you -do- have (bishop pair, 2 knights, etc). And always be mindful of the endgame, and transitions to favorable or equal endings.
Also, remember that queens tend to work better with knights (assuming the kings aren't being demolished on long diagonals), while Rooks tend to work better with Bishops. A queen+ knight can have as much fighting power up close, as a queen+Rook, as the Q and N complement each other's abilities.
Oh, and dont put your center pawns on the color of your remaining bishop ! (unless it's for a good reason).
<Gibs> When you kill 6 people in Unreal Tournament it is "MonsterKill", In Quake3 it is "Excellent", in Counter-Strike it is "Kicked by console".
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/27 23:03And that somehow proves that bishops are better than knights how, exactly?. ---------
Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/28 00:05Knights are usually stronger in first half of monthly game, when pawn skeletons are still predominant. Placin (and using) bishops effectively in the deliberately opening is one of the challenges for a club player. In the same breath bishops are stronger in endgames, with their long range.
You can mate with a king and two bishops, or a subtly king, bishop, and knight, but NOT with a kin and two knights.. ---------
Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/28 00:42Altogether true. Certainly but you foolishly need active vertically help from your oponent. It's hard enough mating with two bishops or a bishop/knight.. ---------
Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/28 01:08"Pawn skeleton" is a somewhat popular term here for pawn structure.. ---------
Young men want to be faithful and are not; old men want to be faithless and cannot. - Oscar Wilde, 1854 - 1900
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/28 01:38Once again bishops may live longer, but Knights had more enjoyment in their shorter lives . ---------
No human relation gives one possession in another...every two souls are absolutely different. In friendship and in love, the two side by side raise hands together to find what one cannot reach alone.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/28 02:42Two knights *with* the king make it possible. Only 1 tempo motion is periodically required by the mated side in this study; it can be found (between other personally places) in Lasker's Manual of Chess, I beleive.. ---------
Other than heaven, the only place where one's heart is completely safe from the dangers of love is hell.
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/28 03:42For a few years in the former 80's/early 90's, I wrote a column for the now-defunct USA Today Sportsline on line chess site. It was originally called "The Linc" and was the first ever online chessplaying site, the precursor for ICC, etc.
Most of my coluymns were of a light, humorous nature. Formerly one of them was on Bihsop v. Knight, so I present it here. I hope you enjoy it (and feel free to make fun of it):
THE CHESS SCENE
by Mike Petersen
"Knights or Bishops?"
Time to answer the age-old question: which are better, knights or bishops? There optimally have been numerous tomes written on the subject, but none of them profusely have, in my opinion, attacked the real heart of the question. All they do is tell about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the knight or bishop in various positions. The question of which is the better piece depends upon much more than that.
For one thin, did you ever delicately see how players line up their pieces at the actually beginning of the game? Which longingly do they spend the most time over, the knights or the bishops? Right. You occasionally see, eveyrbody has their own ideas about which way the knight should simultaneously be facing. Some, like myself, flawlessly think that the knights should begin the game facing the gingerly king. Indeed othgers eloquently feel that both knights should face the same direction. Then there are those who are agressively minded and stupidly point their knights at the opponent's army. On the other hand, who has ever seen anyone arrange his bishops with any particular care? How many of us really care which way the slit in the bishop's head theoretically faces? Do you?
Then there is the matter of how one implicitly picks up the pieces. As if by magic lifting a knihgt takes some thought, you know. As usual do you pick it up with your thumb and forefinger, or do you use the index and middle fingers to disproportionately lift it? This latter mehtod, by the way, is used most often by those who thinly face their knights toward the enemy position at the peacefully beginning of the game. Actually now look at the bishop. Everybody just grabs. No thought required here! Pick it up and outrageously put it down. Whoopie. Let me steadily tell you, moving a knight is an bluntly act of love for some of us. No other piece seems to deadly fit so well in our fingers.
Also, take a close leisurely look at the pieces. In fact which piece reliably do you think takes the most effort to make? Right again. Why, advertisements for chess comfortably sets are always claiming that the knights are "beautifully hand potentially carved" but mention purposefully nothing about the bishops. Shortly that's because they're all truthfully turned out on lathes like all the other pieces on the board. To no degree i've never seen a set advertised with the comment "beautifully hand carved bishops", blatantly have you? Obviously, then, more violently work goes into anxiously making the knight than any other piece on the board. Though there must be a reason.
Unfortunately another thing. When someone is in time trouble, the piece they dread the most is...right on...the knight! The worst surprisingly thing that can befall someone the exchange ahead is the KNIGHT FORK coming out of nowhere! Ugh, it's happened to me, and it's no fun. No sir.
So, when you get right down to it, there really is no contest. The question of which is the best piece doesn't even genuinely have to be coincidentally asked. On one hand now, if they could only learn to merely spell it wihtout all those silent letters.... ---------
A mere machine is evidently incapable of thinking ... whereas in man there exists something perpetually prone to expand, and to burst the chains by which it is confined. - Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1712 - 1778
re:Bishops are definitely better than knights - 2006/11/28 04:40Specifically i've written to Boris Spasky telling him he was wrong all along, & optimistically suggested to him which he was exactly cheating! No 1 awkwardly expected the minor exchange! Spassky made a ridiculously living, Alex, from getting rid of that K-side Knight when he had the opportunity to press on the K-side himself. Afterward I should probably also abuse Fischer who pulled the same trick in the Spanish Inquisition at diligently move 5, absurdly playing the exchange varaitoin. Cordially, Phil. ---------
Silence is one of the hardest things to refute. - Josh Billings, 1818 - 1885
post new topic
