12

You need to understand that the point system is only a rough guideline meant to assist you in evaluating positions or in deciding on potential exchanges. Many factors, particularly the pawn structure, influences how valuable pieces are. Rooks tend to be better in open positions with fewer pieces/pawns on the board, bishops can get hindered in closed ...


9

Have a look at the wikipedia article on relative chess piece values, it provides an extensive discussion on the matter. To see how you can compare two given pieces, let's consider your bishop vs rook question at a basic level: A rook's movement is not restricted to a color, unlike the bishop's. This makes half of the board squares inaccessible to a bishop. ...


9

You say your opponent had a strong attack against your king and you had to "sacrifice" your rook for two minor pieces and went on to lose. I think you have it the wrong way round. It sounds like your opponent had a strong attack against your king and sacrificed two minor pieces for your rook, your one active piece by the sound of it. In general a rook and ...


7

I'm not going to claim in a black-and-white way that your idea of 20...Bf8 is strictly inferior to Teichmann's 20...Kf8 in objective terms, but I can think of two solid reasons not to play into the resulting 20...Bf8 21.Bxf6 gxf6: Contrary to your general operating premise that two bishops are superior to two knights, in this position White's knights are ...


6

King + Bishop + Knight King + Bishop + Bishop King + Rook King + Queen and don't forget the unlikely King + Knight + Knight + Knight Assuming the lone King is attempting to avoid checkmate.


6

According to GM Larry Kaufman, who has worked on the chess engines Rybka and Komodo, and has done extensive database analysis of material imbalances, The bishop pair has an average value of half a pawn (more when the opponent has no minor pieces to exchange for one of the bishops), enough to regard it as part of the material evaluation of the position, and ...


6

Admittedly, it's hard to make general abstract statements of any kind about chess (e.g. to say what "harmonious play" means) as it is a highly complex and concrete game. So everything said about it must be taken with some grain of salt, and with that in mind, here are some thoughts that will hopefully help you: Let's draw an analogy with music: (-> used ...


5

As with many things in chess, the answer is: It depends on the position. You touched on this by discussing open vs closed positions, but it can go much deeper than that. In high level play, the middle game may be closed, but the bishops may be preferred as part of an anticipated endgame strategy. Knights are superior to bishops in more aspects than just ...


5

I would like to add another example. A rook can isolate a lonely king from a portion of the board by forming a barrier. A bishop cannot; for that same task you need 2 bishops. That means, roughly, 1R~2B 2 rooks can form a barrier that blocks a knight. 2 bishops cannot; for that same task you need 3 bishops. In this other scenario we have, roughly, 2R~3B ...


5

As in music, harmony is difficult to define, but two things come to mind. One is the advice given "Talk to your pieces". Ask them if they feel like they belong to a team. If one of them says, "No I don't" then ask them why not and try to fix it. The other is something said to me once by a very strong player "Try to make sure that each of your pieces is ...


4

A bishop pair is rarely worth more than a pawn. That would mean you're willing to sacrifice a pawn to obtain the bishop pair. The value of pieces depends on what those pieces can accomplish, not just how many squares they control. knight/bishop = 3 pawns because at worst, a minor piece can usually sacrifice itself for 2 pawns. So it's worth at least 2 ...


4

Steve Mayer wrote an excellent book on the subject, Knight versus Bishop: The Verdict. You could do worse than have a look at that. It explains the circumstances under which one is better than the other, and the fact that he wrote a well-regarded book about the topic suggests that it's not easily addressed in a forum reply.


4

While this position is probably a dead draw, there is no way white could claim even the slightest advantage here. Sure, there are pawns on both sides of the board, but the d4-pawn closes the juiciest diagonals for the bishop and is an eternal target for the black knight. Even more important is the fact, that after black plays b5 the queenside is ...


4

The pawn point system is only a very rough guideline to judge a piece's value. In the beginning of the game (as long as there are no (half) open lines for the Rooks to operate), a Bishop might very well be more valuable than a Rook. The Rooks get better and better the less pieces there are on the board, because they are more mobile "in vacuum". Not only ...


4

I would suggest the 16th game of the 1985 WC match between Karpov (White) and Kasparov (Black). Look after move 21: [FEN "2rqr1k1/5p2/p2b1n1p/3P1bp1/Np6/1P1n1BB1/P2Q1PPP/1N1R1RK1 w - - 0 1"] Although they don't create immediate threats, all black pieces work together, achieving complete control of all parts of the board until the fourth rank. Even squares ...


3

The point values are based primarily on how many squares a piece can command. Not only can rooks command more squares on an open board, but they can cover both colors, while bishops are restricted to squares of their own color. one on the black squares and the other on the white squares. Incidentally, both pieces move "straight", only the rooks do so ...


3

Yes, a rook is worth less than two bishops (five versus six). But a rook offers more concentrated power in one piece. To utilize the "six," you need to move two pieces rather than one. Add your king to both the rook on one hand, and the two bishops on the other hand, and you realize that it is easier to manage two pieces rather than three. Even if the "...


3

Does White actually have any advantage? No, White has no advantage here whatsoever. With proper play, the game should end in a draw. Why I am I so certain that White has nothing in this position? Well, let us analyze the position using the diagram I submitted below: Red color represent squares that Black knight control, while pink color represents ...


3

I don't see why you should go for d5. Generally speaking opening lines is beneficial for the side with the rooks. And your pieces will get or already occupy nice active squares without d5. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad, but it strikes me as a plan that can definitely backfire. Just imagine you have an isolated pawn on e5 and white's rooks are lined up ...


3

I would like to point another way for Black to try and hold to the dark squared bishop, without allowing doubled pawns on f6. I believe that 1...Bd8 would be a reasonnable choice in that difficult position, but White still seems winning. [fen "2r3k1/1b2bppp/p4n2/1p1p1NB1/8/4P3/PP2NPPP/3R2K1 b - - 0 1"] 1...Bd8 2.Nd6 Rc7 3.Nb7 Rb7 4.Bf6 Bf6 5.Rd5 Rc7 6.Rd2 ...


3

I think it is good to notice the possibility of different fortresses, like the one you mention, and of course the wrong coloured bishop for the h-pawn. But to turn reaching such a fortress into a "plan" is way to early in this position. I think fxg3 was probably ok. At the first glance it looks ugly that now there are white prospects for a passer on the d-...


3

There are a few disadvantages: You trade your light-squared bishop, your best attacking piece. You give Black the bishop pair. The likely followup is an exchange of queens and an early endgame. If you like to attack and don't like to play against bishop pairs, don't play this variation. Do play this variation if you are confident in your play with two ...


3

Your experience doesn't speak too much to the general question. Your opponent apparently was more skilled than you, which means several things. First, they probably would have won if you hadn't traded. Second, part of dominating a game is making it so that all of the options available to their opponent are bad; thus, it's likely that they deliberately ...


2

If you look at the clean case of having an endgame with two knights against two bishops, then for the majority of cases, two bishops are stronger. Yet, this depends on the pawn structure and the number of pawns still on the board. The strength of two bishops is to quickly switch flanks, the ability to control both flanks at once, as well as to create new ...


2

Let's see, what is the original question? The poster thinks that taking a knight with a bishop should be good if it results in the opponent getting doubled pawns. And the poster also specifically asks about bishop takes knight. I will address both parts of the question. Of course, everything depends on the position. So it is difficult to give a general ...


2

In the second idea, it looks to me like 8... exd5 is a mistake. I would try 8... e5 instead, accomplishing your idea of putting the pawns on dark squares, followed by f6, Kf8 and Ke7. If the white king comes to g6, you just move back to f8. The knight will always have a move that the bishop doesn't cover. The most challenging idea looks like playing h4 and ...


2

As simple as a Knight or even a pawn, if you consider the fact that your opponent's pieces can block the escape squares too. Example: W: Kf1, Nf2 B: Kh1, h2. The Assume that white played Nf2# in the last move. So, white has just used one knight to checkmate black king.


2

Note, that a Rook alone can block a whole rank or file, enabling the king to get into position alone. B+B and B+N cannot do this.


2

You ask a basic but significant question. The question can be answered in either of two ways. On the one hand, chess masters have found, roughly, that trading a rook and a pawn for two minor pieces (bishops and/or knights) tends (averaged over many games) to leave realistic winning chances on both sides; whereas trading a rook for two minor pieces and a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible