- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

How to improve in Chess

#21

Ok I understand :) Most of the time it is indeed kicked backwards by pawn moves. Thanks.

Ok I understand :) Most of the time it is indeed kicked backwards by pawn moves. Thanks.
#22

No I rarely play puzzles in lichess but one thing I have a bad habit of studying a puzzle for hours and then making the move in case it is wrong(My puzzle rating says it all).I spend about 1hour each puzzle and after doing two puzzles I get tired often

No I rarely play puzzles in lichess but one thing I have a bad habit of studying a puzzle for hours and then making the move in case it is wrong(My puzzle rating says it all).I spend about 1hour each puzzle and after doing two puzzles I get tired often
#23

How are bishops worth more than knights? I knew knights are worth more as they can do nasty pins and jump over pieces

How are bishops worth more than knights? I knew knights are worth more as they can do nasty pins and jump over pieces
#24

@SpaceXBest Bishops can control more squares, especially in the endgame. However, knights are better in closed positions

@SpaceXBest Bishops can control more squares, especially in the endgame. However, knights are better in closed positions
#25

@SpaceXBest

#23

This is a general rule of thumb which almost always applies in "open" games where the centre is unrestricted by pawns and the bishops therefore have the longest possible scope and range. You can usefully think of these as "artillery" pieces that need a clear line of sight to exert the full measure of their potential influence on the board. The more a diagonal or set of diagonals restrict a bishop's "line of sight" or "mobility", the less useful or "active" it is. This is why a bishop whose mobility is restricted by its own pawns - particularly centre pawns - is called the "bad" bishop and why a frequent "exchange-strategy" is to trade one's "bad" bishop for an opponent's "good" bishop. This kills two birds with one stone because the trade not only gets rid of a relatively useless or inactive piece for its instigator, it also rids the opponent of a powerful and active piece!

Obviously, in a "closed" position - the most extreme case being where all pawns are still on the board but occupy irrevocably "fixed" positions - bishops lose almost all value and knights become much more valuable, relatively speaking, because they can often straddle the obstacles that impede the movement of bishops in such positions.

But if the position is wide open, having a bishop vs a knight, especially the bishop-pair against two knights or a bishop + knight, usually confers a considerable advantage because not only does a bishop (and even more so, the bishop pair) command more squares than a knight from any given position, it can travel from one corner of the board to its diametrical opposite in a single move, something that can only be accomplished by a knight in multiple moves. Finally, it is much easier to get two bishops to work in harmony than to get a bishop and a knight to work in harmony. That is why the K vs N+B ending is so technical and virtually impossible to successfully achieve if one has not learned the mating method.

@SpaceXBest #23 This is a general rule of thumb which almost always applies in "open" games where the centre is unrestricted by pawns and the bishops therefore have the longest possible scope and range. You can usefully think of these as "artillery" pieces that need a clear line of sight to exert the full measure of their potential influence on the board. The more a diagonal or set of diagonals restrict a bishop's "line of sight" or "mobility", the less useful or "active" it is. This is why a bishop whose mobility is restricted by its own pawns - particularly centre pawns - is called the "bad" bishop and why a frequent "exchange-strategy" is to trade one's "bad" bishop for an opponent's "good" bishop. This kills two birds with one stone because the trade not only gets rid of a relatively useless or inactive piece for its instigator, it also rids the opponent of a powerful and active piece! Obviously, in a "closed" position - the most extreme case being where all pawns are still on the board but occupy irrevocably "fixed" positions - bishops lose almost all value and knights become much more valuable, relatively speaking, because they can often straddle the obstacles that impede the movement of bishops in such positions. But if the position is wide open, having a bishop vs a knight, especially the bishop-pair against two knights or a bishop + knight, usually confers a considerable advantage because not only does a bishop (and even more so, the bishop pair) command more squares than a knight from any given position, it can travel from one corner of the board to its diametrical opposite in a single move, something that can only be accomplished by a knight in multiple moves. Finally, it is much easier to get two bishops to work in harmony than to get a bishop and a knight to work in harmony. That is why the K vs N+B ending is so technical and virtually impossible to successfully achieve if one has not learned the mating method.
#26

#23
No, bishops are worth more than knights. This and other knowledge is clearly explained in Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals". There are exceptions and sometimes a knight is worth more than a bishop, a rook, or even a queen.
Here is a game that demonstrates the domination of the bishop over the knight.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033747

#23 No, bishops are worth more than knights. This and other knowledge is clearly explained in Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals". There are exceptions and sometimes a knight is worth more than a bishop, a rook, or even a queen. Here is a game that demonstrates the domination of the bishop over the knight. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033747
#27

Have any writers since Lasker given that "do not pin bishops with knights" thing as an opening principle? It seems like a bit of an oddity and rules out a lot of things that I'd consider to be very normal and reasonable openings, eg the Four Knights, the Ruy Lopez, the Nimzo-Indian, the mainline QGD or the Rossolimo Sicilian. (Also, did Lasker not consider king safety and central control to be worth mentioning?)

Have any writers since Lasker given that "do not pin bishops with knights" thing as an opening principle? It seems like a bit of an oddity and rules out a lot of things that I'd consider to be very normal and reasonable openings, eg the Four Knights, the Ruy Lopez, the Nimzo-Indian, the mainline QGD or the Rossolimo Sicilian. (Also, did Lasker not consider king safety and central control to be worth mentioning?)
#28

Update - just found the principles in context - specifically the 1965 Dover edition of Common Sense in Chess that's on Google Books.

Rule 4 in full is actually "do not pin the opponent's king's knight (by B-KKt5) before the opponent has castled." This is quite a lot more specific than the version @tpr gives, which in itself seems like quite bad advice. He also allows the exception that white should consider playing c4 in Queen's Pawn openings (but presumably still considers the Sicilian and the Caro Kan to be unprincipled).

They're also given specifically as principles for how to develop the pieces rather than general principles of opening play, which is presumably why there's no mention of the centre or king safety.

Update - just found the principles in context - specifically the 1965 Dover edition of Common Sense in Chess that's on Google Books. Rule 4 in full is actually "do not pin the opponent's king's knight (by B-KKt5) before the opponent has castled." This is quite a lot more specific than the version @tpr gives, which in itself seems like quite bad advice. He also allows the exception that white should consider playing c4 in Queen's Pawn openings (but presumably still considers the Sicilian and the Caro Kan to be unprincipled). They're also given specifically as principles for how to develop the pieces rather than general principles of opening play, which is presumably why there's no mention of the centre or king safety.
#29

I’m following the axiom “only move with a specific task in mind” and seeing better results. Still blunder pieces every game, but I’m blundering with purpose!

-Jordan

I’m following the axiom “only move with a specific task in mind” and seeing better results. Still blunder pieces every game, but I’m blundering with purpose! -Jordan

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.