Home 
Search 
Today's Posts 
#1




advantage of two bishops: exchange off another knight as well?
We are all of course familiar with the advantage of the two bishops. I
have found the works on chess strategy by Pachman and Dorfman to be particularly useful in explaining when and why having two bishops is actually an advantage, and how to exploit it. While studying some grandmaster games recently I have been struck by the number of times the material imbalance two bishops vs. bishop and knight is decisive, often with no other pieces on the board. But it was the following game that made a particular impression on me: [Event "Moscowch"] [Site "Moscow"] [Date "1968.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Petrosian,Tigran V"] [Black "Khasin,Abram"] [Result "10"] [Eco "A13"] 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Nbd7 5.g3 Bd6 6.Bg2 00 7.00 b6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Nd4 Bb7 10.Nf5 Ne8 11.Nc3 Ndf6 12.Nb5 c6 13.Nbxd6 Nxd6 14.Nxd6 Qxd6 15.Re1 Rad8 16.e3 Rfe8 17.Rc1 Qe6 18.b4 Qf5 19.Qf3 Qxf3 20.Bxf3 Ne4 21.d3 Ng5 22.Bg4 f5 23.Be2 Nf7 24.Rc2 Rd6 25.Rec1 Ne5 26.b5 d4 27.exd4 Ng4 28.Bf3 Nf6 29.bxc6 Ba6 30.Re2 Kf7 31.Rxe8 Kxe8 32.d5 Nxd5 33.Ba3 Rd8 34.c7 Nxc7 35.Rxc7 Rxd3 36.Re7+ Kd8 37.Re3 Rxe3 38.fxe3 Bc4 39.Bb2 Bxa2 40.Bxg7 a5 41.Bc3 10. What struck me was how Petrosian was in position to gain the advantage of the two bishops on his 11th move, but instead of playing Nxd6 immediately, he first maneuvered with 11.Nc3 and 12.Nb5 so that, after exchanging knight for bishop, he could exchange another pair of knights. I am wondering if it is a general principle that one can better exploit the two bishops' advantage when another pair of knights has been exchanged off as well, as in this example. I have never seen this concept put forward as a general strategy  is anyone familiar with such a concept? It does seem to fit in with some broader strategies: in general, it seems that in positions where bishops are better than knights, reduced material accentuates the advantage of the bishop(s). There is the famous Kashdan ending where material is down to B vs N and each player has a, f, g and hpawns, Bd7 and Kd5 vs. Nd4 and Kd3, and it is enough for the B to win without White making any obvious mistake. There are Fischer's endings with RB vs. RN, where his technique in improving his position, exchanging rooks at the right moment, and winning the B vs N ending was legendary. And there is Dorfman's general rule that bishops coordinate better with rooks while knights coordinate better with queens. Here are a couple more examples of winning endgame technique in BB vs BN positions: [Event "New York op"] [Site "New York"] [Date "1997.04.02"] [Round "0"] [White "Vaganian,Rafael A"] [Black "Pushkov,Nikolai"] [Result "10"] [Eco "E17"] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b6 3.Bg2 Bb7 4.c4 e6 5.00 Be7 6.Nc3 00 7.Re1 d5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.d4 c5 10.dxc5 bxc5 11.Nh4 Qd7 12.e4 Nxe4 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Qxd7 Nxd7 15.Nf5 Rfe8 16.Nxe7+ Rxe7 17.Be3 Rc8 18.Red1 Nf8 19.Rac1 Ne6 20.Bxc5 Rec7 21.Be3 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 23.Bxc1 Kf8 24.Be3 a6 25.Kf1 Ke7 26.Ke2 Bd5 27.b3 Kd6 28.Kd2 f5 29.Bf1 Bb7 30.Ba7 g5 31.Bb8+ Kc5 32.Bc4 Bc8 33.Ke3 g4 34.a3 Kb6 35.Bf4 Kc6 36.b4 h5 37.Bh6 Kd6 38.Bf4+ Kc6 39.a4 Kb6 40.Be5 Kc6 41.Bf6 Kd6 42.Bf1 Bb7 43.h4 Bc8 44.Bd4 Kd5 45.Ba7 f4+ 46.gxf4 Ng7 47.Kd2 Nf5 48.Kc3 Nxh4 49.Bc4+ Kc6 50.b5+ axb5 51.axb5+ Kc7 52.Bd5 Bb7 53.Bf7 Ng2 54.Bxh5 Nxf4 55.Bxg4 Nd3 56.Be3 Ne1 57.Kd4 Kb6 58.Kc4+ Kc7 59.Bf5 Nd3 60.Kd4 Ne1 61.Bg6 Kb6 62.Kc4+ Kc7 63.Bf7 Nf3 64.Bd5 Nh4 65.Bxb7 Kxb7 66.Kd5 Nf5 67.Ke5 Ng7 68.Kxe4 Ne8 69.Ke5 Nc7 70.b6 Nb5 71.f4 Kc6 72.f5 Nd6 73.Ke6 10 [Event "Belgrade"] [Site "Belgrade"] [Date "1992.??.??"] [Round "2"] [White "Chiburdanidze,Maia"] [Black "Kalevic,Sanja"] [Result "10"] [Eco "A14"] 1.Nf3 e6 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.b3 Be7 5.Bb2 c5 6.c4 00 7.00 Nc6 8.e3 b6 9.Qe2 Ba6 10.Nc3 Rc8 11.Nb5 Qd7 12.Rfd1 Rfd8 13.d4 cxd4 14.exd4 Qe8 15.Rac1 Bb7 16.Ne5 a6 17.Nxc6 Rxc6 18.Nc3 Qd7 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Na4 Rdc8 21.Qf1 Qd8 22.Rxc6 Rxc6 23.Rc1 Qc7 24.Rxc6 Qxc6 25.Qc1 Qxc1+ 26.Bxc1 b5 27.Nc5 Bc8 28.Bf4 Bxc5 29.dxc5 Ne4 30.Be3 f6 31.Kf1 Kf7 32.Bd4 g6 33.Ke2 Be6 34.Ke3 h5 35.Bf1 g5 36.h4 f5 37.hxg5 Nxg5 38.Kf4 Ne4 39.Be2 Kg6 40.Ke5 10 
#2




En/na Geoffrey Caveney ha escrit:
We are all of course familiar with the advantage of the two bishops. I have found the works on chess strategy by Pachman and Dorfman to be particularly useful in explaining when and why having two bishops is actually an advantage, and how to exploit it. While studying some grandmaster games recently I have been struck by the number of times the material imbalance two bishops vs. bishop and knight is decisive, often with no other pieces on the board. But it was the following game that made a particular impression on me: (...) What struck me was how Petrosian was in position to gain the advantage of the two bishops on his 11th move, but instead of playing Nxd6 immediately, he first maneuvered with 11.Nc3 and 12.Nb5 so that, after exchanging knight for bishop, he could exchange another pair of knights. I am wondering if it is a general principle that one can better exploit the two bishops' advantage when another pair of knights has been exchanged off as well, as in this example. I have never seen this concept put forward as a general strategy  is anyone familiar with such a concept? (...) Maybe He didn't play Nxd6 because black can not avoid it and later it can be stronger because black can not improve his pieces in 11th and 12th moves (specially his Ne8, Rf8). I don't know if there are a general rule like the one you suggest. If the answer is "true" black can avoid the exchange with 12...Be7 but it seems strange to me. I'm sure about "exchanging rooks" to be good. With two bishops it's easier to activate the king without rooks. The owner of the pair of bishops can try to exchange rooks and if the other player refuses his rooks can be condemned to pasive positions.  That Petrosian game is a very interesting and nice one, ... can I ask how your attention was atracted by it? AT 
#3




Antonio Torrecillas wrote in message ...
En/na Geoffrey Caveney ha escrit: We are all of course familiar with the advantage of the two bishops. I have found the works on chess strategy by Pachman and Dorfman to be particularly useful in explaining when and why having two bishops is actually an advantage, and how to exploit it. While studying some grandmaster games recently I have been struck by the number of times the material imbalance two bishops vs. bishop and knight is decisive, often with no other pieces on the board. But it was the following game that made a particular impression on me: (...) What struck me was how Petrosian was in position to gain the advantage of the two bishops on his 11th move, but instead of playing Nxd6 immediately, he first maneuvered with 11.Nc3 and 12.Nb5 so that, after exchanging knight for bishop, he could exchange another pair of knights. I am wondering if it is a general principle that one can better exploit the two bishops' advantage when another pair of knights has been exchanged off as well, as in this example. I have never seen this concept put forward as a general strategy  is anyone familiar with such a concept? (...) Maybe He didn't play Nxd6 because black can not avoid it and later it can be stronger because black can not improve his pieces in 11th and 12th moves (specially his Ne8, Rf8). I don't know if there are a general rule like the one you suggest. If the answer is "true" black can avoid the exchange with 12...Be7 but it seems strange to me. I'm sure about "exchanging rooks" to be good. With two bishops it's easier to activate the king without rooks. The owner of the pair of bishops can try to exchange rooks and if the other player refuses his rooks can be condemned to pasive positions.  That Petrosian game is a very interesting and nice one, ... can I ask how your attention was atracted by it? AT In the Petrosian Game, I am confused about 26.b5 I can see: if 26...cb5 27.Bxe5 Rxe5 and 28.Rc7 should win, But what about just 26...c5 ? Black Played 26...d4 and the position looks very bad after that. Thanks, 
#4





#5




Antonio Torrecillas wrote in message ...
I'm sure about "exchanging rooks" to be good. With two bishops it's easier to activate the king without rooks. The owner of the pair of bishops can try to exchange rooks and if the other player refuses his rooks can be condemned to pasive positions.  That Petrosian game is a very interesting and nice one, ... can I ask how your attention was atracted by it? The first 14 moves of the Petrosian game are cited by John Watson in his old, excellent book "English Opening: Franco, Slav and Flank Defenses." The point about exchanging rooks with the two bishops is interesting, because if it is just a bishop vs. a knight, a pair of rooks on the board usually makes the bishop _more_ effective. 
#6





#7




I have never heard this stated as a general principle. But I have heard
that the advantage of the two bishops is greater than the advantage of a bishop over a knight. " What struck me was how Petrosian was in position to gain the advantage of the two bishops on his 11th move, but instead of playing Nxd6 immediately, he first maneuvered with 11.Nc3 and 12.Nb5 so that, after exchanging knight for bishop, he could exchange another pair of knights. I am wondering if it is a general principle that one can better exploit the two bishops' advantage when another pair of knights has been exchanged off as well, as in this example. I have never seen this concept put forward as a general strategy  is anyone familiar with such a concept? 
#8




I am wondering if it is a general principle that one can better exploit the two bishops' advantage when another pair of knights has been exchanged off as well, as in this example. I have never seen this concept put forward as a general strategy  is anyone familiar with such a concept? I'm not an expert and don't know about this concept from literature. But from my own experience and my intuition I can only support your statement. Whenever I get the chance to exchange a knight against a bishop early in the game, I have the feeling that I have to get rid of at least one of my opponent's knights. It's obvious that the bishops pair usually develops in an open position and int the ending, when there are not many other pieces are there. A pair of knights is usually not considered as strong. This may hold in open positions and in the endgame. But in a complicated position in an more or less closed middlegame, knights, and especially a pair of them are always good for deadly surprises. They have a huge tactical potential, more than the bishop and more than any other piece on the board. To make the bishops pair live one has to survive the middlegame and reach some more open position or an endgame where one usually can easily turn the advantage of the bishops pair into victory. And for me this tasks looks a lot easier, when the opponent has only one knight instead of two. Just a Patzers view on the topic, greetings. 
#9




Manuel Hölß wrote in message ...
I am wondering if it is a general principle that one can better exploit the two bishops' advantage when another pair of knights has been exchanged off as well, as in this example. I have never seen this concept put forward as a general strategy  is anyone familiar with such a concept? I'm not an expert and don't know about this concept from literature. But from my own experience and my intuition I can only support your statement. Whenever I get the chance to exchange a knight against a bishop early in the game, I have the feeling that I have to get rid of at least one of my opponent's knights. It's obvious that the bishops pair usually develops in an open position and int the ending, when there are not many other pieces are there. A pair of knights is usually not considered as strong. This may hold in open positions and in the endgame. But in a complicated position in an more or less closed middlegame, knights, and especially a pair of them are always good for deadly surprises. They have a huge tactical potential, more than the bishop and more than any other piece on the board. To make the bishops pair live one has to survive the middlegame and reach some more open position or an endgame where one usually can easily turn the advantage of the bishops pair into victory. And for me this tasks looks a lot easier, when the opponent has only one knight instead of two. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. Here is another, more complicated, example of the same concept from the opposite side (or so it seems to me): [Event "FIDEWch"] [Site "Elista"] [Date "1996.06.??"] [Round "7"] [White "Karpov,Anatoly"] [Black "Kamsky,Gata"] [Result "10"] [Eco "E97"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 00 6.Be2 e5 7.00 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4 Nh5 10.Re1 h6 11.Nd2 Nf4 12.Bf1 a5 13.bxa5 Rxa5 14.Nb3 Ra8 15.c5 f5 16.cxd6 cxd6 17.Nd2 g5 18.Rb1 g4 19.Qb3 fxe4 20.Ndxe4 Kh8 21.Be3 Nf5 22.Bb6 Qe7 23.Qb4 Rf7 24.a4 Bf8 25.Be3 Certainly there are complex tactical and strategic considerations that led Karpov to offer this bishop for exchange for a knight here, while he avoided it three moves earlier (the black queen on the efile, Black's pieces more tied down to defense of d6). But clearly he is not worried about Kamsky's two bishops in the event of a BforN exchange, what with his wellplaced N on e4 backed up by another wellplaced N on c3. 25...Nh5 26.Rbc1 Nf6 27.Bb6 But now Karpov again avoids giving up his bishop. Why? I think it has something to do with the exchange of the Nf6 and Ne4 being possible now. Karpov does not want to give Kamsky just the two bishops vs. just his bishop and knight. It's also important to note that Karpov would be giving up the better of his bishops  but that didn't bother him when he played 25.Be3. If Kamsky had tried 25...Nxe3 26.Rxe3 first and then 26...Nh5 intending ...Nf6, notice how Karpov could make use of his second knight with 27.Nb5. The rest of the game features more impressive strategic play by Karpov. In fact the game is ultimately decided by the superiority of this same darksquared bishop over Kamsky's: 27...h5 28.Nxf6 Qxf6 29.Ne4 Qg6 30.a5 Ng7 31.Bb5 Bf5 32.Ng3 Bc8 33.Rc3 h4 34.Bd3 Nf5 35.Nxf5 Bxf5 36.Bxf5 Qxf5 37.Rc4 Rg7 38.Qb1 Qh5 39.Qd1 h3 40.Ree4 hxg2 41.Rxg4 Rh7 42.h4 Be7 43.f3 Rg8 44.Bf2 Rhg7 45.Qe2 Bd8 46.Be1 Qf7 47.Qd3 Qh5 48.Qe4 Qh6 49.Qf5 Bxa5 50.Rxg7 Bb6+ 51.Kxg2 Qxg7+ 52.Rg4 Qe7 53.Qh5+ Qh7 54.Rxg8+ Kxg8 55.Qe8+ Kg7 56.Qe7+ Kh8 57.Qxd6 Qg7+ 58.Bg3 Bc7 59.Qe6 Kh7 60.d6 Bd8 61.Qf5+ Kh6 62.Kh3 Qf6 63.Qxf6+ Bxf6 64.Kg4 b5 65.Kf5 Bd8 66.Kxe5 Kg6 67.Kd5 b4 68.Kc4 Ba5 69.Kb3 Kf5 70.Ka4 Ke6 71.h5 10. 
#10




En/na Geoffrey Caveney ha escrit:
Antonio Torrecillas wrote in message ... I'm sure about "exchanging rooks" to be good. With two bishops it's easier to activate the king without rooks. The owner of the pair of bishops can try to exchange rooks and if the other player refuses his rooks can be condemned to pasive positions. The point about exchanging rooks with the two bishops is interesting, because if it is just a bishop vs. a knight, a pair of rooks on the board usually makes the bishop _more_ effective. Hello, (maybe a little bit late) In endings with two bishops advantage or bishop vs knight with rooks, one of the most important facts is to be prepared to exchange a piece in the correct moment in order to increase the advantage (changing the type of ending). In the last days (I was on holydays without internet connection nor chessboard) I have read (glanced?) three chess books and one of them was Eingorn "Decisionmaking at the chessboard", .... I need to check it, but I think I have read in it something related. AT 
Reply 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Forum  
What do you think of my method of king, bishop, and knight checkmate?  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
RGCA: Akopian  Kramnik analysis  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
Bishops are definitely better than knights  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
Bishops are definitely better than knights  rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)  
Bishops are definitely better than knights  rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 