Resolved: Bishops are superior to knights in the game of chess.

Introduction: In this passage my opponent makes the mistake of assuming modern day chess strategy is somehow better than classical chess strategy. This is undoubtedly false. Today the top ranked player in world is named Magnus Carlson. His coach is Garry Kasparov who has stated repeadedly that Carlson “has a positional style similar to that of past world champions such as Anatoly Karpov, José Capablanca” (1). These three players follow classical strategy and are among the best players in the entire world. Another such player who follows classical strategy is Vladimir Kramnik. Kramnik’s playing style is similar of another grandmaster named Anatoly Karpov who idolizes the classical player Capablanca. Karpov described his playing strategy like this: “Let us say the game may be continued in two ways: one of them is a beautiful tactical blow that gives rise to variations that don't yield to precise calculation; the other is clear positional pressure that leads to an endgame with microscopic chances of victory. .. . I would choose the latter without thinking twice. If the opponent offers keen play I don't object; but in such cases I get less satisfaction, even if I win, than from a game conducted according to all the rules of strategy with its ruthless logic. ” (2) My opponent is simply stating a blatant lie. Classical strategy is still utilized by grandmasters around the world. My opponent provides the game Alekhine versus Capablanca to further his point. While yes, Capablanca did lose he was unprepared thinking Alekhine would be an easy matchup. Even Alekhine was surprised Capablanca lost. They never had a rematch so it is impossible to tell from this matchup whether Alekhine, at his best, would defeat Capablanca at his best. (3) Alekhine, as grandmaster, “consciously sought lesser opponents for his subsequent championship matches, rather than giving Capablanca another chance. ” (3) The two never played each other at their best. Later, Alekhine lost to a player named Max Euwe, who plays according to the rules of classical chess. Just look at Euwe’s book, The Development of Chess Style, which further expands upon classical chess strategy presented by Stenitz. (4) Even in modern chess strategy players such as Bobby Fisher have a preference for bishops rather than knights. Horowitz Bishops My opponent makes no mention of this in their rebuttal. Mobility It is an undisputed fact, bishops are more mobile. They can move from one side of the board to the other quicker than a knight can. While yes, in a closed position game, a knight is stronger than a bishop this game can easily become an open positioned game where, according to classical chess strategy, the bishop is the strongest. (5) Furthermore, there are some positions where bishops are stronger even in a closed position, such as Roy Lopez. My opponent cites my quote of Kasprov who won the game because he took, captured, the opponents bishop, not because he had his own. He recognized the necessity of capturing the bishop and did so. The Game a) Opening Yes, knights do develop faster but, to “ruin” a knights development all it takes is a single pawn. Openings such as Ruy Lopez zaitsez, and the Sicilian openings utilize something known as a fianchetto Bishop. This is where a single bishop controls a central diagonal (b2, g2, b7, g7) and therefore, is extremely powerful. In some games of the Kings Indian, a bishop on g7 is so powerful that players are willing to sacrifice material rather than exchange for it. b) Middle Game Classical strategy is not wrong. I will continue by saying, a knight is a supporting piece in this stage. It is extremely difficult to attack with just a knight alone. Knights generally find an “outpost” and sit there supporting an attack within their vicinity. If the “action” so to speak, moves to the other side of the board, then the player has to spend that time moving the knight to the other side of the board. Now what happens if the knight ends up in the corner of the board? It is basically powerless, a bishop in the corner still has power. c) End game I stated a knight will lose power with the loss of the queen (by the end game the queens have usually been traded) while a bishop does not lose as much power as the knight without the queen. Material Value The Knight being worth 1/16th more is only really useful for a computer program not practical chess play. Furthermore, Kaufman found an unpaired bishop and an unpaired knight are equal (within 1/50th of a pawn) but, a paired bishop against a paired knight gives the bishop a definite advantage. 1/50th of a pawn is statistically useless. (6) . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.chesscafe.com... . http://en.wikibooks.org... . http://home.comcast.net...