Author: Dan Andersson
Date: 10:47:23 06/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
>And as far as I know, this rule was first formulated by Capablanca. His >explanation was more or less the following: the in the ending QN vs QB, the >Queen is by far the stronger piece, so its degree of activity decides who has >winning chances. The bishop and the knight play only a supporting role for their >respective queen. But if all the other conditions are roughly equal, the knight >has more supporting potential for a queen, precisely because its moves are >completely different, while the bishop moves are a restriction of the queen >moves. He was a great chess player, but I was actually warned away from his books by my chess istructors. I never read one, but studied his games instead. One should remember that most of the chess litterature from that era was more or less propaganda, to attract the patrons and the money for Championship matches. And were peppered with catch phrases and quick fixes. Come to think of it, it's almost the same today in the chess education market. >I think analysis of huge databases show slight better results for the side with >the knightk, but I am not sure at this moment. The difference in rating of the players should be taken into account and the edge might be explained by that alone. In any way the rule seems to have a predictive power that makes it next to useless and maybe dangerous to the uncritical mind. >José.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.