Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 07:38:06 10/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 1999 at 17:09:03, Laurence Chen wrote: >On October 07, 1999 at 13:30:52, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>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 >Hi Fernando, > I believe you misunderstood my post. I never claimed that a Bishop is superior >to a Knight, I only cited examples where a Bishop or a Knight may be the >superior piece, and this is dependent on the PAWNS in the chessboard. That's my >whole argument, the dependency of PAWNS to define the topology of a chess >position, which I believe supports the view of Philidor, the pawns are the soul >of chess. To say that knights and pawns are soul of chess, is absolutely wrong >and there's no truism to such statement, I could even make such a statement >like, the Rooks and pawns are the soul of chess !!! >Laurence Hi L: Maybe you are right and I missunderstood. If such is he case, my apologies. Yes, pawns are the squeleton of chess positions. Cheers F
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.