| |
Main
Date: 20 Jun 2005 09:31:31
From: Zero
Subject: Bishops are better than knights
|
I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
than bishops.
But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
1) Bishops are better than Knights in open positions. You can always
open a closed position but you can never close an open position. (Open
positions are ones with less pawns on the board)
2) Bishops travel faster and have more mobility.
3) Knights require outposts/holes. But you can dislodge a knight by
just moving a pawn.
4) Bishops are better in the endgame especially ones with pawns on both
side of the board.
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2005 06:44:36
From: Zero
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
Interestingly, I was at the shall Chess Club last week and saw two
GMs analyzing a game that they had just played. One of the GMs told
the other that the USCF had elections for the USCF board. He said that
bishops are better than knights and gave an analogy to describe why.
He said if you read your April issue of Chess Life, any reader can see
that Sam Sloan was like a bishop because he was very direct in this
candidate statement and did things in a straightforward way. He then
said that everyone else who gave their statements were like knights
because they jumped around. GMs are GMs and they know everything about
chess so that guy must be right.
Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
> > than bishops.
> > But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
> >
>
>
> Will your nt post tell us that you've concluded that queens are better
> than rooks?
>
> And is there a good reason you posted this to rec.games.politics, or are
> you just a huge freaking moron?
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2005 21:12:54
From: Leopold
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
Check out http://amchesscoaching.com/Articles/knights%20before%20bishops.htm
Leopold
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
> than bishops.
> But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
>
> 1) Bishops are better than Knights in open positions. You can always
> open a closed position but you can never close an open position. (Open
> positions are ones with less pawns on the board)
>
> 2) Bishops travel faster and have more mobility.
>
> 3) Knights require outposts/holes. But you can dislodge a knight by
> just moving a pawn.
>
> 4) Bishops are better in the endgame especially ones with pawns on both
> side of the board.
>
>
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2005 20:01:01
From: cranberry man
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
Yeah, but the point is that a knight can easily be dislodged from
defending a piece, whereas a bishop cannot be dislodged so easily....
--
If you don't have opera, get it now at www.opera.com
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2005 07:46:05
From: Jason Repa-bot
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
This Zero dude said, "I was like all of you once. I once believed that
knights were better than bishops."
Listen here, Zero. And listen good. I have never, ever thought knights
were better than bishops. All right? Get that through your thick skull.
I don't know who you've been talking to, but they're lying.
And if I catch any sign again that you're stalking me, I'm going to
come and personally kick your nought-hole!
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2005 09:34:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
>I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
> than bishops.
> But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
Objectively, the Bishop has slightly more total power than a knight, but
rarely will that differential be enough to change the evaluation of a
position.
The pieces are so different that it really depends on the position.
You said that a knight can be disloged by "just moving a pawn." No one
"just moves" a pawn, as that often creates holes.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2005 00:24:06
From: Johnny Tsunami
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
very good. That was worth 50 master class points...
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2005 10:21:46
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
"Johnny Tsunami" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> very good. That was worth 50 master class points...
Apologies to Zero. There are arseholes in every newsgroup.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 15:29:51
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
> than bishops.
> But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
>
Will your next post tell us that you've concluded that queens are better
than rooks?
And is there a good reason you posted this to rec.games.politics, or are
you just a huge freaking moron?
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 15:23:52
From:
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > writes:
> I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
> than bishops.
> But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
>
> 1) Bishops are better than Knights in open positions.
Almost always, but see Nimzowitsch's games for some
exceptions.
You can always
> open a closed position
Not true, or nobody would ever win closed positions with
good knight vs bad bishop. The player with the bishop
would just open the game, if he could.
but you can never close an open position.
Also not true. See for example Lasker-Santasiere, from
Edward Lasker's "Chess Secrets", IIRC.
(Open
> positions are ones with less pawns on the board)
Also positions with plenty of pawns, but not
blocking the critical diagonals.
> 2) Bishops travel faster and have more mobility.
In open positions
>
> 3) Knights require outposts/holes. But you can dislodge a knight by
> just moving a pawn.
(a) You may not want to move that pawn.
(b) By moving the pawn you may create another outpost.
(c) You cannot drive a Knight away if you have already
moved the pawns beyond the outpost. For example, if
white has played c4 and e4, as in many openings, d4
is a potential outpost. If you want to play so as to
never allow such an outpost you will be handicapping
yourself considerably.
> 4) Bishops are better in the endgame especially ones with pawns on both
> side of the board.
With the exception that Q+N is as good or slightly better
than Q+B in general. Ed Mednis also gives some examples
of endgames with open positions and pawns on both sides of
the board, but in which the knight is better. Such positions
are rare, to be sure.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 11:58:22
From: richard stanz
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
But in speed chess, a knight can be better than a rook!
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 16:43:33
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
> than bishops.
> But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
>
> 1) Bishops are better than Knights in open positions. You can always
> open a closed position but you can never close an open position. (Open
> positions are ones with less pawns on the board)
>
> 2) Bishops travel faster and have more mobility.
>
> 3) Knights require outposts/holes. But you can dislodge a knight by
> just moving a pawn.
>
> 4) Bishops are better in the endgame especially ones with pawns on both
> side of the board.
Thank you for your interesting opinions.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2005 18:51:18
From: Jerzy
Subject: Re: Bishops are better than knights
|
>>I was like all of you once. I once believed that knights were better
>> than bishops.
>> But now I think that bishops are better than knights:
>>
>> 1) Bishops are better than Knights in open positions. You can always
>> open a closed position but you can never close an open position. (Open
>> positions are ones with less pawns on the board)
>>
>> 2) Bishops travel faster and have more mobility.
>>
>> 3) Knights require outposts/holes. But you can dislodge a knight by
>> just moving a pawn.
>>
>> 4) Bishops are better in the endgame especially ones with pawns on both
>> side of the board.
5) Knights are much better than bishops especially in blitz
6) Two knights are no worse than two bishops in endings or open positions,
ask GM Zarnicki or me why :-)
7) Bishops cannot travel to the fields of other colour and knights can
8) Bishops cannot jump over other pieces and knights can
9) Bishops` moves are so predictable, knights` moves are so unpredictable
:-)
|
|
