Bishops are also only better than knights if you have both. If you only have one, specially at late game the opponent can put all their pieces at the opposite color and it becomes nearly useless compared to one knight
I like bishops over the knights but only when it's a pair. If we have only 1 of the pieces I prefer the knight since even though he is a "slower" piece the knight can control each square while the bishop sees only half of the board. Not to mention that sometimes the knight can do some really insane forks. But of course it ultimately depends on the specific position.
To be fair: it depends on the position. If the knights would stand in the center and the bishops are blocked behind pawns, knights are better. In general it is correct that bishops are preferred in endgames by grandmasters for a reason. The harmonize with rooks and are long range snipers
At 3:41 I think if you moved your bishop to f6 to protect your pawn in 2 moves you could get checkmate if opponent doesn’t notice by hopping your knight where the bishop was and then taking the black pawn at h7 with your other bishop
Double bishops generally have better synergy than double knight or knight and bishop. Also positions usually give rise to a good bishop or a bad bishop.
Yes, 2 or more forces combined to achieve an effect much greater than each individual capability - SYNERGY. And I swear 100% I did not look that up. Just one of my favorite words! Perfectly used here.
Howard Staunton regarded the knight as being worth 3.05 pawns and the bishop 3.5 pawns, a difference of 0.45 pawns, or in modern parlance, 45 centi-pawns.
Bishops aren't always better than knights. Imagine a beautiful outposted knight completely uncontested in enemy territory on a closed board. Imagine it up against a bishop that is locked in behind it's own pawn wall. Piece value is not determined by what is taken off the board, but what is left on the board. I could show you positions where a single pawn is worth more than 10 queens.
Beginner - intermediate player here. Normally is it worth it to trade bishop for a knight if it doubles opponent’s pawn structure? I know that there is no definitive answer, but is it generally a good move? Assuming the board is a quite opened, that is
Only if you expect you can capitalize on that, such as if they've castled on that side. There's also the concept of "trade your bad piece for their good piece" and avoiding the reverse; if your bishop is practically trapped and their knight is doing something important, absolutely go for it. In an early game open position, generally no though; backwards pawns aren't much of a liability in the early game, and there's often many opportunities to undouble your pawns.
@@SparkSovereign thanks for the advice! I see. Bad piece for good piece is something I often overlooked and I ended up keeping a blocked bishop over a flexible knight. And interesting take on how early the trade is occurring. Early in the game there are a lot of chances to undouble the pawns. I need to keep this in mind. Thank you for the advice!
What I like to do is close the position, and have two knight on the center, the bishops become dead. But no pawns and knights on the side, it's a lost game.
At 2:52 after defending your queen with the bishop to d3 he moves his pawn to d6. Would it then be better to take the knight on a6 with the bishop? It would remove the defender of the other knight (b7) and you would get both knights with a fork on the king and undefended rook, or just the free knight if they didn't take back. Am I missing something though? I am only like 1300 so I wouldn't presume to know more.
I'm almost 1600 and I never studied openings. You learn most traps pretty quickly just by playing, but I don't think you need to learn theory until like 1800 level
if u r below 1000, I suggest to focus more on the middle game and look out for tactics so that u hang less pieces and punish your opponent's mistakes (so basically practice puzzles). However, I did study a bit of opening theory in the Vienna, Indian Game, Traxler, and plan on getting a bit of knowledge on the Caro. This helped me get a more concrete idea of what to do in some different openings, and didn't take a long time since these openings r pretty straight forward (especially the Vienna and Indian), so it could be useful for u. But if u don't think that would be a good idea for u right now, u don't need to do it. As @iluxa-4000 said, he's almost 1600 and didn't study theory, I did and think it was a good idea. But u see for yourself if need to improve this part of the game or focus on something else. im 1450 btw.
knights can fork the opponent especially when there are time troubles. Moreover knights can capture opponent pawns easier than bishop. I prefer keeping knights than bishops. The position that Nelson shown was opponent both knights are at the edge. So this was why bishops were better, however in most cases, knights would not be at the edge
what a coincidence, GM Irina Krush posted a similarly themed video at around the same time (not implying either one of you copied the other, of course)
what the..is that really how 2000s elo usually play? my opponents who are 1000s played better than this (im talking about konjic),does it mean that my opponent is smurfing or its just nowadays chess player are getting stronger?
Agree BUT 2 knights close in together near the King cant be blocked and can checkmate the King easily and maybe why Knights and bishops have same value on paper. BUT you have to get the knights in close where Bishops can attack from other side of board. Personally i try to keep the bishops unless i gain a advantage swapping them. Helps if you know how to use the,. I seen good players use knights to destroy a position so its a bit like the preferred sports car you want to drive to get same win on race day?
literally JUST finished watching Irina Krush's new video about bishops being better than knights then this popped up. Why is everyone hating on knights today lol
Even Kasparov says that bishops are better than knights, the question itself is that bishops can control squares from long distances without the risk of being attacked and they can easily move to the other side of the board in one move, knight can't do this so they are more limited to close range
Well, in this case your bishops were monsters and his rooks were extremely weak cause they were in the rim. But, in endgames, knights are actually the most powerful piece, even more powerful than rooks in my opinion. They jump around forking king and rook. That's why your king and rook should either stay next to each other or far apart. But like I said, in this case his knights were horrible! Give me a knight over a bishop always in an endgame.
In such an open position, even if both sides are active, bishops still usually dominate knights, they control more squares and are able to move much quicker. The only downside of bishop than knight is that it can only stay on one colour, which will be fixed in case of having a pair. Although it is true that knight forks are tricky to handle, especially in low level/limited time situations
Interestingly, I just played a closed 5 vs 4 pawn each my bishop against his knight endgame. I had two doubled pawns. My bishop utterly dominated his knight, controlled all forward and side mobility, defended my two pawn roots while my king went for his pawns. His knight couldn't stop me.
I love my Knights when they’re working together in enemy territory, but a Bishop can control most of the squares a Knight can jump to, so you can dominate it endgame solo. So endgame is definitely for Bishops.
Actually knights are strong against opponents who can't predict knights movements that comes with experience for low rated players knights are knightmares. Besides this video is a bit misleading because those Knights are out of the game anyway and your bishops are too close to blacks king without any backup. Piece activity and position. If it was 2 knights instead of bishops there still would have come on top.
Not a good analysis in general. Most consider knights and bishops worth 3.5, but take one off the board? All of a sudden the other bishop's worth much less (2.5 or less?), while the lone knight retains its 3.5 value regardless. Bishops cover 7 forward squares (13-max including backward-looking squares) on an open board, while knights cover 8 (middle), 4 (side), 2 (corner). Bishops are easier to envision (linear movement), knights require a little more analysis (time). Thus, it's easy to devalue bishops by taking one in an equal exchange. All things being equal, it's best to trade one bishop for a bishop and the other for a knight, leaving opponent with one k and one b, while you retain both k's. It's worth at least a pawn (1 pt) to do so.
Bishops are better on an open board, but knights are better in a closed position
There you go. It's that simple.
Chess Vibes principle #20
So shouldn't trade bishops for knight cuz bishops are better for endgames.
@@Ueiwbwowheoeho not all endgames are played on an open board
The key word being “open” board. Nice illustration of the power of bishops.
Bishops are also only better than knights if you have both. If you only have one, specially at late game the opponent can put all their pieces at the opposite color and it becomes nearly useless compared to one knight
"well, if you have a chance to look at that ...". I really love this phrase. Thank you for the good content as always.
Nelson intentionally pauses for a second at these critical times so that the viewer could pause and check the position out.
I like bishops over the knights but only when it's a pair. If we have only 1 of the pieces I prefer the knight since even though he is a "slower" piece the knight can control each square while the bishop sees only half of the board. Not to mention that sometimes the knight can do some really insane forks. But of course it ultimately depends on the specific position.
To be fair: it depends on the position. If the knights would stand in the center and the bishops are blocked behind pawns, knights are better.
In general it is correct that bishops are preferred in endgames by grandmasters for a reason. The harmonize with rooks and are long range snipers
He did say open board in the video
Bishops are better on open board but endgames are generally open board.
I did enjoy that when you asked what to do if black uses his Rook to stop you winning with Bg7 is... use Bg7 to win anyway!
At 3:41 I think if you moved your bishop to f6 to protect your pawn in 2 moves you could get checkmate if opponent doesn’t notice by hopping your knight where the bishop was and then taking the black pawn at h7 with your other bishop
Double bishops generally have better synergy than double knight or knight and bishop. Also positions usually give rise to a good bishop or a bad bishop.
Yes, 2 or more forces combined to achieve an effect much greater than each individual capability - SYNERGY. And I swear 100% I did not look that up. Just one of my favorite words! Perfectly used here.
Howard Staunton regarded the knight as being worth 3.05 pawns and the bishop 3.5 pawns, a difference of 0.45 pawns, or in modern parlance, 45 centi-pawns.
the opponent from the match seems to like knights, because his name is konjic which means a small horse in his native language.
3:33 oh, nice
LMAO
@@user-zu6ts5fb6g What's so funny"
Bishops aren't always better than knights. Imagine a beautiful outposted knight completely uncontested in enemy territory on a closed board. Imagine it up against a bishop that is locked in behind it's own pawn wall.
Piece value is not determined by what is taken off the board, but what is left on the board. I could show you positions where a single pawn is worth more than 10 queens.
Let's just remember that mostly endgames are open positions. That's why grandmasters, in general, tends to prefer the bishops.
Beginner - intermediate player here. Normally is it worth it to trade bishop for a knight if it doubles opponent’s pawn structure? I know that there is no definitive answer, but is it generally a good move? Assuming the board is a quite opened, that is
Only if you expect you can capitalize on that, such as if they've castled on that side. There's also the concept of "trade your bad piece for their good piece" and avoiding the reverse; if your bishop is practically trapped and their knight is doing something important, absolutely go for it.
In an early game open position, generally no though; backwards pawns aren't much of a liability in the early game, and there's often many opportunities to undouble your pawns.
@@SparkSovereign thanks for the advice! I see. Bad piece for good piece is something I often overlooked and I ended up keeping a blocked bishop over a flexible knight.
And interesting take on how early the trade is occurring. Early in the game there are a lot of chances to undouble the pawns. I need to keep this in mind.
Thank you for the advice!
What I like to do is close the position, and have two knight on the center, the bishops become dead. But no pawns and knights on the side, it's a lost game.
many chess books consider bishops to have a value of about 3.25 and knights as 3.00. most often that seems to be the case :)
Meanwhile a single knight destroying a single bishop even at endgames with pawns
I actually figured this one out because of your 6 things to check when evaluating the position
At 2:52 after defending your queen with the bishop to d3 he moves his pawn to d6. Would it then be better to take the knight on a6 with the bishop? It would remove the defender of the other knight (b7) and you would get both knights with a fork on the king and undefended rook, or just the free knight if they didn't take back. Am I missing something though? I am only like 1300 so I wouldn't presume to know more.
Quick question : when do we have to learn opening in chess, for example like 1000s elo or below?
I'm almost 1600 and I never studied openings. You learn most traps pretty quickly just by playing, but I don't think you need to learn theory until like 1800 level
if u r below 1000, I suggest to focus more on the middle game and look out for tactics so that u hang less pieces and punish your opponent's mistakes (so basically practice puzzles). However, I did study a bit of opening theory in the Vienna, Indian Game, Traxler, and plan on getting a bit of knowledge on the Caro. This helped me get a more concrete idea of what to do in some different openings, and didn't take a long time since these openings r pretty straight forward (especially the Vienna and Indian), so it could be useful for u. But if u don't think that would be a good idea for u right now, u don't need to do it. As @iluxa-4000 said, he's almost 1600 and didn't study theory, I did and think it was a good idea. But u see for yourself if need to improve this part of the game or focus on something else. im 1450 btw.
I'm 2000 with one opening
The question is which pair is better?
Obviously the bishops 0:38
A queen and a knight can also be very powerful, possibly more so than a queen and a bishop!
But Two rooks and two bishops combo is better than queen and 2 knights
@@reachvidurmuraliyeah because 2 bishops > 2 knights, 2 rooks> queens
@@Diddyhottieoilly1222 true
Tricky knights and sneaky bishops
knights can fork the opponent especially when there are time troubles. Moreover knights can capture opponent pawns easier than bishop. I prefer keeping knights than bishops. The position that Nelson shown was opponent both knights are at the edge. So this was why bishops were better, however in most cases, knights would not be at the edge
Bishops stay on their color whereas kinghts alternate colors every movie
A knight on the rim is grim. A knight in the corner is a go(r)ner.
And the funny thing is the dude he is playing against is called "Konjic" which meand horsie
what a coincidence, GM Irina Krush posted a similarly themed video at around the same time (not implying either one of you copied the other, of course)
Yeah what are the odds lol
YEAh WhAT aTe rHe ODds lOl
what the..is that really how 2000s elo usually play? my opponents who are 1000s played better than this (im talking about konjic),does it mean that my opponent is smurfing or its just nowadays chess player are getting stronger?
or cheating.
Knights are better if you’re below GM level. And a single bishop is for sure worse than a single knight but 2 bishops are bettet
Agree BUT 2 knights close in together near the King cant be blocked and can checkmate the King easily and maybe why Knights and bishops have same value on paper. BUT you have to get the knights in close where Bishops can attack from other side of board. Personally i try to keep the bishops unless i gain a advantage swapping them. Helps if you know how to use the,. I seen good players use knights to destroy a position so its a bit like the preferred sports car you want to drive to get same win on race day?
Bishop is ver powerful
Me: no shit do you know how many queens ive blundered coz of them?
It's depends on position
Oh! You showed a really beautiful checkmate ❤ I'll try to remember this kind of sequence with rook + bishops 👌
literally JUST finished watching Irina Krush's new video about bishops being better than knights then this popped up. Why is everyone hating on knights today lol
Even Kasparov says that bishops are better than knights, the question itself is that bishops can control squares from long distances without the risk of being attacked and they can easily move to the other side of the board in one move, knight can't do this so they are more limited to close range
"A bishop is stronger than a knight." Igor Smirnov.
"Except when they aren't." Me.
Words to -live- play by.
So 2 knights are not that good in an endgame, huh? Well, what about the recent Magnus vs Nodirbek game? 🤨😉😄
Nice game! That position looked composed at the end!
Well, in this case your bishops were monsters and his rooks were extremely weak cause they were in the rim. But, in endgames, knights are actually the most powerful piece, even more powerful than rooks in my opinion. They jump around forking king and rook. That's why your king and rook should either stay next to each other or far apart. But like I said, in this case his knights were horrible! Give me a knight over a bishop always in an endgame.
In such an open position, even if both sides are active, bishops still usually dominate knights, they control more squares and are able to move much quicker. The only downside of bishop than knight is that it can only stay on one colour, which will be fixed in case of having a pair. Although it is true that knight forks are tricky to handle, especially in low level/limited time situations
Interestingly, I just played a closed 5 vs 4 pawn each my bishop against his knight endgame. I had two doubled pawns. My bishop utterly dominated his knight, controlled all forward and side mobility, defended my two pawn roots while my king went for his pawns. His knight couldn't stop me.
I love my Knights when they’re working together in enemy territory, but a Bishop can control most of the squares a Knight can jump to, so you can dominate it endgame solo. So endgame is definitely for Bishops.
This guy doesn't look like 2300
Glad to see a game without complications.😎
When I see this, I know I am brilliant at this because it's so easy.😎
Hello folks, Comment your rating. Mine is 2100 in rapid.😊
Chess Vibes principle #20
Actually knights are strong against opponents who can't predict knights movements that comes with experience for low rated players knights are knightmares. Besides this video is a bit misleading because those Knights are out of the game anyway and your bishops are too close to blacks king without any backup. Piece activity and position. If it was 2 knights instead of bishops there still would have come on top.
Your opponent's name actually translates to little 🐴
Well your game was an open position, that was why your bishops were superior.
Born to say knights are better. Forced to say bishops are better
Not a good analysis in general. Most consider knights and bishops worth 3.5, but take one off the board? All of a sudden the other bishop's worth much less (2.5 or less?), while the lone knight retains its 3.5 value regardless. Bishops cover 7 forward squares (13-max including backward-looking squares) on an open board, while knights cover 8 (middle), 4 (side), 2 (corner). Bishops are easier to envision (linear movement), knights require a little more analysis (time). Thus, it's easy to devalue bishops by taking one in an equal exchange. All things being equal, it's best to trade one bishop for a bishop and the other for a knight, leaving opponent with one k and one b, while you retain both k's. It's worth at least a pawn (1 pt) to do so.
Yeah exactly. Knights are too overrated in top chess and everywhere
I agree
4rth
*promosm*
Knights are better
First 🥇🏆
Third ig
Second i guess