Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 10:30:52 10/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
There is only one flaw in your reasonnning about relative strenght of bishops and knights: this is not like a case of 1+1= 2 or 3. Precisely because it is not that discussions on this stuff have sense and are possible. Your argument about mobility is very old and surely have some sense, but not all the sense you seem to give to it. And it has not so much proofs as those you ask from Marc. You say he is talking "hot air". Why? So only a talk accompanied with "facts" is not hot air? So a piece of debate and reasonning cannot exist without "facts"? Facts say that nothing is fully demostrated in chess, except that if you lose the king you lose the game. That is the reason so much changes are produced all days in openning theory and even in endings. That is the reason so many differents ways to win or lose appears all days. In concrete, I think that something is not all the time taken into account respect knights strenght and that thing is his vicious capacity to attack several point at the same time. A bishop has long range, but there is something dull in the obvious way it attacks, always in straigh line. You just put your pawns so and so and the bishop lose track. Even because the obstacle of your own pawns sometime becomes unseful and even a hindae of the position. A knight, on he contrary, has enormous flexibility to move over his and enemy pieces. Slowly as he jump, a knight can become a nigtmare to face in even an ending. I think this sould be taken into account before to repeat the old saying about bishop superiority Fernando
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.