Good example.
«The sacrifice for active bishops is difficult to study in a systematic manner. However, a pair of active bishops is frequently adequate compensation for a pawn or even the exchange - in a middlegame position»
«The sacrifice for active bishops is difficult to study in a systematic manner. However, a pair of active bishops is frequently adequate compensation for a pawn or even the exchange - in a middlegame position»
2 bishops + rook > 2 rooks + bishop
@tpr
Few quips on this matter:
«Adding the better cooperation of the rook with the bishops, many Soviet theoreticians believed that, in active positions, rook and two bishops outperform two rooks and a knight»
«The bishop pair is also very capable of compensating for a material deficit; it is, e.g., well-known that in open positions the bishop pair combined with a rook is stronger than the combination of two rooks and a knight. The superiority of the two bishops can also be seen in the struggle against other minor pieces, that is to say against a bishop and a knight or against two knights»
«Many of the Classicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century claimed that two bishops versus rook and knight were equivalent. I don’t believe that this is the case, i.e., I think the extra material will usually win out, but this view continues to influence chess thinking to some extent even today»
Few quips on this matter:
«Adding the better cooperation of the rook with the bishops, many Soviet theoreticians believed that, in active positions, rook and two bishops outperform two rooks and a knight»
«The bishop pair is also very capable of compensating for a material deficit; it is, e.g., well-known that in open positions the bishop pair combined with a rook is stronger than the combination of two rooks and a knight. The superiority of the two bishops can also be seen in the struggle against other minor pieces, that is to say against a bishop and a knight or against two knights»
«Many of the Classicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century claimed that two bishops versus rook and knight were equivalent. I don’t believe that this is the case, i.e., I think the extra material will usually win out, but this view continues to influence chess thinking to some extent even today»
Hi 👋 “09’
Yes good!
yaaaaaaaaaasqueeen.
Rowson calls the pair of bishops the „Hermaphrodite“. It is by far stronger than two times one Bishop.
I honour and respect the quotes of the much better players above, but is the present game not simply an example of white overlooking a #4 checkmate at the end of a series of three significant mistakes?
1) 28. g3 fails to strengthen the critical c-file
2) 30. h3 fails to defend the a1-h8-diagonal
3) 31. g4 fails to unblock the rook as a last resort to block checkmate.
In other words: before move 28, the situation in terms of material is identical (2B+R v B+2R) but white is rated +4 by stockfish after 28. Rc1 and I would argue this rating to be precise i.e. won position for white, thereby relativating #3.
1) 28. g3 fails to strengthen the critical c-file
2) 30. h3 fails to defend the a1-h8-diagonal
3) 31. g4 fails to unblock the rook as a last resort to block checkmate.
In other words: before move 28, the situation in terms of material is identical (2B+R v B+2R) but white is rated +4 by stockfish after 28. Rc1 and I would argue this rating to be precise i.e. won position for white, thereby relativating #3.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.