Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:09:44 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 1998 at 14:09:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On June 10, 1998 at 12:59:52, Johanes Suhardjo wrote: > >>Is a bad bishop only the one behind the pawns with the same square >>color? Is the one in front of the pawns not bad? > >This is an extremely hard question. > >A bad bishop is a bishop that can't participate fully, because of the >pawn structure, usually your own pawns and not the opponent's. > >I have seen a bishop be bad because exactly one friendly pawn is >inhibiting the bishop. > >I have seen bishops that are excellent even though many friendly pawns >are on its color, this is usually the bishop in front of the pawns case >you mention. > >I think that this is one area where humans have put a label on something >without really having a firm definition of what they are describing. >There are cases where a human would say, "that bishop is bad", but you >can make minor changes to the pawn structure, the bishop's location, the >other minor pieces on the board, or the general tactical situation, and >the bishop suddenly becomes a monster. True. Humans only know 'bad bishops and good bishops', where i introduced the term 'position bishop' too, when analyzing with opponents, and they (my teammembers) laughed about that name, they didn't hear it before. I have masses of bishop terms in Diep, but it's hard to define everything, as you clearly are 'inventing' new names, where a human simply says: it's either bad or good. the hardest part though as you already pointed out above is a bishop which is bad, just because there is only 1 pawn at the wrong color, which is not even blocked. I'm having massive problems to make my program this last part clear. >bruce Vincent
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.