BaronDerKilt, perhaps I should re-emphasize the point since I may not have written clearly enough for you to get it. This blog entry is not about how knights are better than bishops. There is no such thing as bishops always being better than knights or the other way around. This is merely an example of a position where a knight is favored over a bishop.

 

At move 14 black has a decision. He can either play 14. ... Nd4 and trade the knights in order to use his "good" bishop against white's "bad" bishop or he can play as in the game and trade his bishop for a knight and play a knight against a bishop. How do we make this decision? Is it relevant that Fischer almost always preferred bishops over knights, or valued bishops as 3.25 and knights as 3.15 (do we really understand what these numbers mean)?  These are interesting general concepts and may help us in some positions, but they don't help us make a chess move in at move 14 in the current game.

 

If black had decided to play good bishop vs. bad bishop he likely would have made little progress. Even though his bishop is technically good, it has little prospects for activity in the game position because it is restricted by enemy pawns. Any attempt to open lines for his own bishop would make the opponent's bishop  better as well. 

Well played!

Fischer most always preferred a B and would nearly always trade to leave a N vs his B, according to another GM I read. Sorry I cant recall the source a the moment. He also gave a B 3+ point value and a N only 3 in his writing.

I've thought about this and believe it is because, while they each have there positions, it is easier to create a B position since it involves line opening rather than outposting. Someone like Tal plays to ALWAYS be able to open lines, and The GM of the Open Line, he always Could do so. Study Tal if you want to know how...every master knows how to force open an attacking line, but perhaps cannot Always open lines like Tal. It is largely how you play the pawns.

good !!

Wow, excellent game! That's one of the clearest illustrations of good knight vs bad bishop I've seen in a game between "mortals".

A few definitions of outpost: 

 

Loomis> A knight outpost is a square that a knight can occupy without being attacked by a pawn (and often supported by a pawn of it's own).

 

Silman> A square can only be considered a support point if it cannot be attacked by an enemy pawn, or if the pawn advance would severely weaken the enemy position.

 

Nimzowitsch> By an outpost we mean one of our own pieces, usually a knight, which is placed (within enemy territory), being protected (by a pawn of course) and on an open file.

 

Silman's and Nimzowitsch's definitions cover some additional cases with are interesting and useful in practice. For example,

 

FEN: r4rk1/ppp2ppp/3p2n1/3N4/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/2KRR3 w - - 0 1

 

[I can't upload the diagram for some reason]

The simple rule for me is to value bishops more in an open game, while knights are able to overcome blockades in a locked game.  I think this is an expansion of your hypothesis, since it covers the entire field.  There seems to be diverse thoughts on this subject.  Simplicity works for me.  Thanks for the post.

Good use of a real game to, hopefully, put to rest some of the rather inane forums.  Thanks for the post.