|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
bigpeta 13-Mar-13, 13:47 |
 B vs N some ideasSo which is it better to have? As usual there are no definitive answers but the relative values of the two change as the game progresses. We start with an initial valuation of each being worth 3 pawns. After that there are several pros and cons to weigh into the decision. Pros:- N - Mobility on a crowded board. - Changes colour every move. - Attacks many squares in many directions at once. - Unusual method of moving makes its attack path difficult to spot. B - Long range attack along the diagonals. - Mutual protection with and from a pawn. Cons:- N - Changes colour every move. - Has to attack from close in. - Takes many moves to reach across the board. B - Limited movement on a crowded board. - Confined to one colour of squares. Notice I have made the change of colour both a pro and con for the N. This is because the pro is that no piece can 'hide' from it by staying on one colour. Whilst the con is that if an attacked piece moves to a square of the same colour then the N needs 2 moves to attack again. In the endgame it depends to some extent on the distribution of the enemy pawns. if they are divided across both sides of the board then the B is considered better with its ability to move swiftly from side to side. If they are on one side of the board then the N with its ability to change colour is considered better. The above is a very simplistic description just to get the discussion going. |
||
|
Example N vs B gameknot.com |
||
|
xpchesser23 23-Nov-13, 10:45 |
|
||
|
bigpeta 26-Nov-13, 05:10 |
think a little furher whereas a N and a R can change colour. Now this is why we have a debate about their relative merits and why i went to great pains to lay out the different positions in which either 'could' be better. Notice that word could. There are no absolutes in an chess game which is why i stress guidelines and not rules. |
||
|
xpchesser23 26-Nov-13, 07:07 |
|
||
|
bigpeta 26-Nov-13, 07:20 |
read what i said |
||
|
xpchesser23 26-Nov-13, 07:29 |
|
||
|
Perhaps we can let Capablanca... Chapter Six of 'Last Lectures' is devoted to 'Bishop vs Knight Endings'. Now, Capablanca is known for his preference for bishops, and yet, not out of the first paragraph of the chapter, he states, with emphasis: "The Knight is superior to the Bishop in all blocked positions." That's pretty straight up and down, eh? He gives this as an example: White to play <Click on the diagram to follow the play> Capa says White has the advantage, though not perhaps enough to win: 1.d4 Kb6 2.Nd2 a5 3.Nf3 axb4 4.axb4 Kc7 5.Ne5 Kd6 6.Nxg6 Bh6 ... "And although White has a Pawn's advantage, rhe modus operandi to win is not in sight." The problem White has in this position does not lie in which minor piece he has. In the final position, let the bishop and knight swap colours, thus: White would if anything be in a worse case (though not enough to lose), as the bishop has absolutely no targets. Note, by the way, that the 'pure' pawn ending is also very drawish here. Before leaving this, consider this very similar position. The only difference is the location of the Black bishop to a light square. Much less mobile on account of the colour squares upon which his pawns stand: Capablanca suggests that in this instance, White would have the opportunity to win by playing his King to d4 and then the knight to e5. I'm not so sure about that, as after 1.Ke3 Kd6 2.Kd4 Bd7 (2...Be3 does seem to lose) 3.Nd2 Be8 4.Nf3 Bf7 5.Ne5 Be8 ... and now White is wanting a waiting move. Had the g-pawn stood at g2, for example White would indeed win. From this point, White's sole winning chance seems to lie in 6.c4 ... Himself wanting a decent 'nothing' move, Black pretty much has to exchange pawns: 6...dxc4 7.dxc4 bxc4 8.Nxc4ch ... or 8.Kxc4 ... Both look promising. Much the same idea lies behind 1.Ke3 Kd6 2.Kd4 Bd7 3.Nd2 Be8 4.Nb3!? Bd7 5.Nc5 ... (5.Na5 is worth a look, too) 5...Bc8 6.c4 bxc4 7.dxc4 dxc4 8.Kxc4 ... In this opened up position I would really fancy White's chances, e.g.: 8...Ke7 9.Nd3 Kd5 10.Ne5... etc. Capa doesn't go into this much detail, leaving it to readers to nut out for themselves, but he does cite these positions as exemplars of a second 'general principle' (the first being that gag about Knights in blocked positions): GP2: "When you have a Bishop, place your own pawns on squares of the opposite colour from the Bishop['s]. In the above examples, because the first diagram fitted in with this principle (the 'good bishop' so-called), Black could just about hold. In the second, with a 'bad' bishop, White wins. This 'general principle' can be said to be fairly reliable, but my experience (admittedly not as great as Capa's!) has shown that in some circumstances a 'bad' bishop can be a very useful defensive piece. At that, it is very often handy to have a 'same square colour' pawn around, especially in the centre, upon which the anchor a bishop in a powerful post. ... To be continued... |
