|
|
|
Topic: i heard that knights are useless later in the game
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
For me, this is only my opinion. If I have a queen I like the bishops than the knights but without a queen I like the knights than the bishops.
Ray Duque III
New York City
|
|
|
I prefer knights over bishops at any point of the game, although it's not always right.
I used to do some amazing things with them, because people tend to underestimate their mobility. Their faces usually go  after a few easy moves.
But this all depends of course, on the pawn structure and other elements of the game, I've had my ass kicked by a pair of bishops many times. 
|
|
|
http://www.queenalice.com/opening.php?board=RNBQK--RPP---PP----P-N-P--PpP-----p----b--p-pp--p-----ppr--qkbnrkqKQ-nB&halfmove=18
Imagine this position with no Queens or rooks. Black would play ... g5 to drive away the Bishop and then play against the doubled pawns with his knights. If his knight was already on a5, as it might be in other Nimzo-Indians, he would be doing even better!
|
|
|
But of course knights don't always do well on the flanks; hence the saying 'Knight on the rim; prospects are dim'. They cover more ground from the centre and in a blocked position (see above).
|
|
|
i think it depends on the position...
|
| Previous 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
