chess here

Chess Here

Participate and you will find!
Nutty name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
i_play_slowly 23 ( +1 | -1 )
Knights vs. Bishops In Silman's "Reassess Your Chess," he says, "A Knight is often superior to a Bishop on the fifth rank," but he does not explain why. My question: Why would a knight generally be superior to a Bishop on the fifth rank? Thanks to all who reply.
alberlie 12 ( +1 | -1 )
same reason as in the other thread - add to it that the knight on the fifth penetrates deep into enemy territory.
pawntificator 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Also I read the other book you mentioned, The Amateur's Mind, in in that book Silman says a Knight on the 6th rank is worth a rook or more.
alberlie 19 ( +1 | -1 )
No... ... not exactly what he says. He says that the site that is faced with the knight on the sixth is often happy to trade it off and invest a rook for the knight and it's supporting pawn.
More: Chess
i_play_slowly 57 ( +1 | -1 )
Silman quote "A Knight on the fifth [rank] is a powerful attacking unit and is usually stronger than a Bishop.
A Knight reaches the zenith of its potential on the sixth rank. Here it eats most other pieces alive and the defender is often happy to sacrifice a Rook for the offending horse and the pawn that protected it" (p. 15).
Silman's opinions in this regard, of course are based on tradition:
"To have an enemy knight planted at e6 is worse than a rusty nail in one's knee" (Bogoljubow).
"The great master places a Knight at e5; mate follows by itself" (Tartakower).