Originally posted by RedmikeGeneral rules are to help players avoid making common mistakes. Of course a stronger player knows when to break the rules when the position calls for it. I see no problem with having general rules.
Chess is really not that simple a game.
You cannot have general rules about whether bishops are better than knights or vice versa.
It depends on the dynamics and the structure of the position.
Sometimes a bishop is better than a rook, or a knight might even be better than a queen.
Originally posted by TRAINS44What would Jeremy Silman Do?
Hmmmmmmm....wwjsd?
I started off on this site preffering knights, but I got demolished quite a few times by the bishop pair, so I decided to try to keep my bishop pair as much as possible. I'm still learning, but it does seem that the bishops are better, except maybe when playing a lower rated player who may not see the 1 or 2 move knight forks.
D
"Bishop versus Knight: The Verdict" by Steve Mayer, 1997
International Chess Enterprises (American Batsford Chess
Library), Figurine Algebraic Notation, paperback, 224pp., $22.50
Reviewed by Glenn Budzinski
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bvkt.txt
Reviewed by Hoa H
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AGYN68JA8L7PB?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
Originally posted by RagnorakI change my mind. They're about equal, and the relative superiority of the minor pieces depends wholly on the position.
What would Jeremy Silman Do?
I started off on this site preffering knights, but I got demolished quite a few times by the bishop pair, so I decided to try to keep my bishop pair as much as possible. I'm still learning, but it does seem that the bishops are better, except maybe when playing a lower rated player who may not see the 1 or 2 move knight forks.
D
Is the bishop good or bad? Does the knight have safe advanced outposts? Is the position open or closed? Can I open or close the position to suit my pieces to the detriment of my opponents pieces?
D