Which would be stronger, a chess side with a back row of all rooks or a chess side with a back row of all bishops
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @ShadowTodd
The rooks, officially the "tier ranking" of pieces is the rooks are worth 5 points each and the bishops are worth 3.5
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ShadowTodd
A single rook is capable of reaching any space on the board, and the "distance" when unobstructed is never more than two moves A single bishop is completely barred from ever reaching any square with a different color than the one it started on
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ShadowTodd
That said, while the bishop can only reach half the board, it can also reach any square in its half of the board in two moves when unobstructed On the other hand, the knight can reach any square eventually but this may take a long time (the subject of the "Knight's Tour" puzzle)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ShadowTodd
But the knight jumps, so it cannot be obstructed This balances out to a knight being slightly less good than a bishop (3 points to the bishop's 3.5)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @ShadowTodd
Huh, I always thought Knights and bishops were equal, with bishops were better early game (before you lose one) and knights better late game (after you lose a Bishop)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @revolverzanbolt @ShadowTodd
The 3.5 thing is a way of expressing the fact that it's 3 by itself and 7 in a pair Two bishops are better than two knights, but one knight and one bishop are about the same
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In theory, if you had two bishops on the same color somehow (turning a pawn into one or whatever) getting in each other's way, they would only be as useful as two knights, maybe less useful
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.