i love this
Thanks for the useful article.
The following were also useful.
Techniques of Positional Play
by Valeri Bronznik an Anatoli Terekhin
"Capablanca established the following guidelines for the placing of the pawns - we shall restate them, slightly modified so as to avoid any misunderstandings:
1. if our opponent has a bishop but we do not, we must put our pawns on squares of the same colour as that opposing bishop(thus if our opponent has a light-squared bishop our pawns should be on light squares, if his bishop is dark-squared, they should be on dark squares).
2. But if we have a bishop, then the pawns should go one squares of the opposite colour, it does not matter whether our opponent also has a bishop or not.
Of course these rules must frequently be subject to modification according to the concrete demands of the position."
The following were also useful.
Techniques of Positional Play
by Valeri Bronznik an Anatoli Terekhin
"Capablanca established the following guidelines for the placing of the pawns - we shall restate them, slightly modified so as to avoid any misunderstandings:
1. if our opponent has a bishop but we do not, we must put our pawns on squares of the same colour as that opposing bishop(thus if our opponent has a light-squared bishop our pawns should be on light squares, if his bishop is dark-squared, they should be on dark squares).
2. But if we have a bishop, then the pawns should go one squares of the opposite colour, it does not matter whether our opponent also has a bishop or not.
Of course these rules must frequently be subject to modification according to the concrete demands of the position."
Great approach.. Contrasting pairs of things.. not just bishop vs knight. I like the contrast of Colle and London, just looking at early position characteristics.
I like the graphical choices of diagrams. I find them already suggestive of the ROTs formulations with conditions using words. Easier to have in memory and let the mechanics of chess do the rest.
Notions of outside, I particularly favor, as being a 2D natural notion that anyone can latch on.
I like the graphical choices of diagrams. I find them already suggestive of the ROTs formulations with conditions using words. Easier to have in memory and let the mechanics of chess do the rest.
Notions of outside, I particularly favor, as being a 2D natural notion that anyone can latch on.
I think the various pros of knights and the fact that they work together in pairs gives them reasonably more coverage. Knights either have to protect each other OR be supported by two different colored squares.
Also Rooks are ranked lower than Queens so it's going to be easier to chain with your rooks (you have two of them) and thus work with Bishops rather than Knights.
I think A SINGLE KNIGHT is a very powerful tool but analytically if you could have two bishops that is preferable to two knights.
Thus I think the "point value" of a bishop is higher in early games. The value of a single knight may raise. The value of Bishops and Knights become closer when there's only one of each left. And it also depends on your pawn structure.
I think the fact that Knight and Bishop value depends on pawn structure so much is why the "point value" is so highly contested.
Rooks, queens and pawns have clear roles and are supported by bishops or knights.
I would wager that if you looked at statistics on the following, you would be able to assign higher point values based on the particular board configurations:
* Two bishops
* Pawns on the right colored squares
* One bishop
* One knight
I think the Bishop and Knight don't have a fixed "point value" but that the "point value" of those pieces is based on the advantage you have depending on the above. I hope that makes sense. Great article.
Much harder to achieve these positions in practice, sadly, as players are constantly looking out for them!
Also Rooks are ranked lower than Queens so it's going to be easier to chain with your rooks (you have two of them) and thus work with Bishops rather than Knights.
I think A SINGLE KNIGHT is a very powerful tool but analytically if you could have two bishops that is preferable to two knights.
Thus I think the "point value" of a bishop is higher in early games. The value of a single knight may raise. The value of Bishops and Knights become closer when there's only one of each left. And it also depends on your pawn structure.
I think the fact that Knight and Bishop value depends on pawn structure so much is why the "point value" is so highly contested.
Rooks, queens and pawns have clear roles and are supported by bishops or knights.
I would wager that if you looked at statistics on the following, you would be able to assign higher point values based on the particular board configurations:
* Two bishops
* Pawns on the right colored squares
* One bishop
* One knight
I think the Bishop and Knight don't have a fixed "point value" but that the "point value" of those pieces is based on the advantage you have depending on the above. I hope that makes sense. Great article.
Much harder to achieve these positions in practice, sadly, as players are constantly looking out for them!
thanks to you greatmaster!
Excellent post overall.
If you're interested what a 3400+ rated computer thinks, AlphaZero thinks that the pieces are worth the following:
- Pawn: 1
- Knight: 3.05
- Bishop: 3.33
- Rook: 5.63
- Queen: 9.5
So, the B is very slightly better. This is based on analyzing millions of training games against itself.
It's not absolute "evidence," of course, but it's at least interesting to consider what a top-rated computer thinks.
Of course, it's a tiny difference (0.28) and in practice other factors are more important (for example, is the B hemmed in by its pawns?)
ido-iba.medium.com/chess-computers-and-the-estimated-value-of-the-pieces-cc5360124be
If you're interested what a 3400+ rated computer thinks, AlphaZero thinks that the pieces are worth the following:
- Pawn: 1
- Knight: 3.05
- Bishop: 3.33
- Rook: 5.63
- Queen: 9.5
So, the B is very slightly better. This is based on analyzing millions of training games against itself.
It's not absolute "evidence," of course, but it's at least interesting to consider what a top-rated computer thinks.
Of course, it's a tiny difference (0.28) and in practice other factors are more important (for example, is the B hemmed in by its pawns?)
ido-iba.medium.com/chess-computers-and-the-estimated-value-of-the-pieces-cc5360124be
one of the best articles on lichess!
I know I should be focusing on the article content, but..."infamous" Bobby Fischer? Perhaps a native language barrier? Fischer was simply "famous."