PDA

View Full Version : When bad bishops are good



Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 10:07 AM
Bad bishops are lousy when they leave squares of the opposite colour weak, esp. for knight or king infiltration, e.g. Siegbert Tarrasch vs Richard Teichmann, San Sebastian 1912 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1141646), Raymond Keene vs Jonathan Penrose, Cambridgeshire - Essex match 1970 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1290180), Vasily Smyslov vs Iosif Rudakovsky, Moscow URS ch 1945 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1125461).

They can be good when they can defend important pawns against heavy pieces, while the good bishop can't defend his own, so the heavy pieces become tied down. See Svetozar Gligoric vs Efim Geller, Zurich ct 1953 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1048624), Anatoli Karpov vs Robert Huebner, Graz tt-stud final 1972 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067675) (this game impressed many about the young Karpov, showing that his positional understanding was "deeper and more subtle" than even a recent Candidates qualifier), Anatoli Karpov vs Valery Salov, Reykjavik WCup (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068885).

Sometimes such a bad bishop needs to be exchanged, as per Efim Bogoljubov vs Victor L Wahltuch, London (England) 1922 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1030701), as Capablanca noted about W28. John Watson (author of the "modern chess strategy" books) give too little credit to the non-dogmatism of the old players. For another example, see Vasily Smyslov vs Paul Keres, Hague/Moscow 1948 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072243), W17,20.

Desmond
20-05-2007, 01:39 PM
One other thing to add:
Bad bishops are usually more active if they are on the outside of your pawn chain.

Zwischenzug
20-05-2007, 01:47 PM
This reminds me of a chess saying I once heard:
"The worst bishop is always better than the best knight".

Its probably untrue though.

MichaelBaron
20-05-2007, 02:37 PM
This reminds me of a chess saying I once heard:
"The worst bishop is always better than the best knight".

Its probably untrue though.

It is definetly untrue :)

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2007, 06:18 PM
It's especially untrue in the endgame.

I like it when a bishop is so bad that it is referred to as if it was an extra pawn.

ER
20-05-2007, 07:36 PM
It's especially untrue in the endgame.

I like it when a bishop is so bad that it is referred to as if it was an extra pawn.

an extra Pawn which cannot advance forward like other Pawns do tho! :)

Cheers and good luck

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2007, 01:40 PM
One other thing to add:
Bad bishops are usually more active if they are on the outside of your pawn chain.
Then they are not bad anymore!

The bad bishop is not necessary the on of the same colour as your pawn chain. It is the one blocked by own pawns so it cannot play.

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2007, 07:51 AM
Then they are not bad anymore!

Some English books will still term them "bad" all the same. E.g. Euwe and Kramer's bilogy on the Middlegame has a section on how a bad bishop can be strong outside the pawn chain.

Desmond
23-05-2007, 09:14 AM
Some English books will still term them "bad" all the same. E.g. Euwe and Kramer's bilogy on the Middlegame has a section on how a bad bishop can be strong outside the pawn chain.Yes, and this gives rise to the third term for a bishop - the "active" bishop - which is essentially a bad bishop (i.e. one that is on the same colour as its own pawn chain; not necessarily a description of the effectiveness of that piece) that is active because it is outside the pawn chain.

alien chess
23-05-2007, 09:43 AM
Isnt an 'active' bishop a bishop which can be good or bad, but it does something useful?

Desmond
23-05-2007, 10:06 AM
Isnt an 'active' bishop a bishop which can be good or bad, but it does something useful?In a general sense, I guess you could argue that for any piece - eg. active v passive king in the endgame - but not in the sense I described above.

Basil
23-05-2007, 10:23 AM
Actively bad bishops are on the nose and finally the Catholic Church is taking the matter in hand :clap:

ER
23-05-2007, 12:45 PM
Actively bad bishops are on the nose and finally the Catholic Church is taking the matter in hand :clap:

yes, but there are also bad bishops with good intentions!
Cheers and good luck!

Intuition
23-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Even tho ive never read it, Im pretty sure that in modern chess stategy, Watson challenged the general idea of a bad bishop given that fact that the 'bad' bishop may be playing a very important role by supporting a pawn chain for example. I guess every unique position has to be taken on its merits in determining wether a bishop is good or bad. :P

MichaelBaron
23-05-2007, 02:46 PM
Even tho ive never read it, Im pretty sure that in modern chess stategy, Watson challenged the general idea of a bad bishop given that fact that the 'bad' bishop may be playing a very important role by supporting a pawn chain for example. I guess every unique position has to be taken on its merits in determining wether a bishop is good or bad. :P

If we use this logic, any bad piece can be good in some positions :doh:

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2007, 03:39 PM
Even tho ive never read it, Im pretty sure that in modern chess stategy, Watson challenged the general idea of a bad bishop given that fact that the 'bad' bishop may be playing a very important role by supporting a pawn chain for example. I guess every unique position has to be taken on its merits in determining wether a bishop is good or bad. :P

That was sort of the point of the initial post. But Watson gives too little credit to the greatness of the old champions.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 08:11 AM
One of Watson's best examples is Vassily Ivanchuk vs Viswanathan Anand, Linares 1992 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1060292). Go to that link and see where someone has pasted Watson's comments. The main thing is that Black had a superficially bad pawn structure and bad B. But the good B couldn't protect the pawns, so the white Rs were somewhat tied down. So Black could force the exchange of his "weak" pawns for the enemy "good" pawns in such a way as to leave Black with strong connected passed pawns. But a clever tactic won the game before the pawns could be used.

However, as shown in earlier posts, Watson underestimates the ability of the earlier master to judge a position on its individual merits as opposed to following "rules" too uncritically.