Thank you.  I am having too many senior moments with my memory.



BUT, according to Oxford companion, they have it as "Horrwitz."  "Horwitz" and say it could be "Harrwitz!"  Some claim it is named after the German problem composer & member of the "Berlin Pleades", Horwitz.   


I defer to your expertise in these matters.  Of course, now I will use the corrected spelling and next site I will be "re-corrected."   

FischerTal wrote on 02/04/09 at 00:22:02:


Power Chess with Pieces (2004) NIC

I thought this was an excellent book and spent much time going through it.  I know this is an opening site, but I would recommend this book over directly studying opening theory to most players 1600 - 2000.  I think Timman picks very good high level examples in which to explore the operational motifs of the minors.

Also, the oft maligned My System has a chapter on"The Horowitz Bishops" that is worthwhile.  Not as deep as so many others, but very good at showing the true terrors they can create.

Gimme dem Bees!


I love the B pair and have tailored my opening rep to gain them as much as possible, perhaps to the degree of dogmatism.   

FischerTal wrote on 02/04/09 at 00:22:02:


I think you mean 'Power Chess with Pieces', focusing on bishops and knights. I own the book and have read it, and was very pleased with it. Players of all levels can learn from this excellent book, and it can also be read without using a board and pieces. The only disadvantage is that in some instances the annotations can be quite brief, but the larger game selection as a result is probably more useful, in my opinion.

A search on Mega Database using the 'Manoeuvres' and the 'Material' search, combined with an ECO code as well, should show up hundreds of highly instructive games. I would do this myself, but I don't have the time to at the moment.

There was once a book called Mastering the Bishop Pair by Srokovsky, Borulia & Braslawski.  It was part of a series that also included a book on hanging pawns.  I have them in a box somewhere.  I can't remember if the Bishop Pair book was any good, but I have a dim recollection of lots of exercises and little in the way of explanation.  Can anyone confirm or correct that?


Edit:  This is apparently a book to avoid.  See http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bishopair.txt

Greetings,

Speaking of books...

Gelfer's excellent Positional Chess Handbook has a chapter on them - as it does on virtually everything else!

Perhaps a list of game positions which he features will allow you to find them in a database/book!?

Skold-Keres. Stockholm 1966/67
D. Bernstein-Murey, Israel 1980
Gelfer-Ein Dor, Israel 1980
Spassky-Gheorghiu, Moscow 1979
Korchnoi-Matanovic, Palma de Mallorca 1968
Capablanca-Fine, New York 1931
Cintron-Botvinnik, Munich 1958
Flohr-Botvinnik, Moscow 1933
Botvinnik-Bronstein, Moscow 1951
Uhlmann-Gligoric, Hastings 1970/1971
Polugaevski-Ivkov, Belgrade 1969

Also, Day-Chandler, Brighton 1980 is particularly good as a example of the two bishops' power - even though Chandler was the exchange down: two bishops and rook versus two rooks(!) and knight.

I'm sure that if you managed to find these (with annotations!) - or others from borrowed books from friends or the library - they should help make it clear why/how they're advantageous.

I'm equally certain that all those better than me could explain these finer points to you so that you can better understand what's happening in the above games - but I'll have a go for starters...

In the simplest cases - involving a single bishop (without any other piece) - the options for both sides are clear:

Same Colour:
Put your pawns on the opposite colour to your bishop => blockading opponent's pawns on the same colour as his bishop, restricting his bishop's space/mobility, whilst preventing him from attacking your pawns;

Opposite Colour:
In the endgame, this means that a passed pawn may not be queened - your bishop can only protect it as long as it stands on the same colour, it can't go further because the opponent's bishop can capture it. Hence the reason for the tendency - not guarantee! - of their leading to draws.

Add a second bishop and everything changes!

In the first case, one's pawns are no longer immune from attack - if the opponent has the two bishops. Of course, a knight could attack them as well - but only half the time that a bishop could, so they are never immune. You don't get the chance to do something to protect them whilst the knight's on the same colour square as your pawns.

In the second, the passed pawn can advance without fear - the opponent would have to sacrifice his bishop (or knight) to stop it.

[Also, pawns on both sides of the board - whether friend or foe - are more easily protected or attacked, respectively: the side with a knight or two knights would find this type of ending difficult to defend, due to the time it takes to switch the knight(s) quickly to the other side of the board.]

The latter point - with a passed pawn - also applies in the middle-game positions involving hanging pawns. The two bishops work particularly well with these, as they can support the advance of the pawns - their mobility is what makes hanging pawns a strength rather than a weakness. One of the tactics used to keep them mobile involves threatening discovered attacks, from the bishops, by advancing the pawn(s) - the opponent has to move the threatened piece (king, queen, etc) out of the way of the threatened discovery, allowing you to advance the pawn - and so on.

Like the rooks, the bishop - and particularly, the two bishops - thrive in open positions => you should open lines/diagonals for them, at least. Ideally, one should open up the position as much as possible.

[Check through games arising from openings involving bishop-for-knight exchanges - the Ruy Lopez Exchange, Nimzo, etc - to see how players with the two bishops handle these.]

Again, like the two rooks, you can force mate with the two bishops. You can't do that with two knights - and can only do so. using bishop and knight, with difficulty.

Which is another way one can use the two bishops to advantage - gaining concessions from the opponent (through positional weaknesses or passivity by forcing the opponent to "waste" moves/time preventing mate-threats).

As I said, I'm sure the titled players could do much better than this - but it's at least a start.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

Hello:

I think an older game is often used in strategy books to show how to fight with the bishop pair, maybe it is Englisch-Steinitz, London 1883. One of the other members can confirm.

The book, Lessons in Chess Strategy by Valeri Beim, has a chapter on the bishop pair with 16 exercises following the chapter.

Gerry