The battle between the knight and bishop is one of the key imbalances in chess. Given their roughly equal general value, the pieces afford players many opportunities to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of trading one for the other.

It's obviously important for a player to be able to handle both minor pieces well, but it's not unusual that a player does better with one or the other. In my tournament practice, I have often demonstrated the advantages of the bishop versus the knight, especially in concert with a rook.

The following game, against longtime master Hugh Myers (who has written a number of books and the world famous Myers Openings Bulletin) is an example. Myers played one of his patented variations, and I burned a lot of time in the opening. We eventually reached a tough (for both sides!) middlegame, and he sacrificed a pawn. Unfortunately, he spent too much time winning back the pawn and overlooked the fact that, in the R+B versus R+N ending, his knight was no match for the bishop.

Randy Bauer (2220) - Hugh Myers (2200)

Hawkeye (Iowa) Open, 9-25-94

Scandinavian Defense (by transposition)

1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d5 3.ed Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qa5 5.d4 Bg4 6.Bb5 e6

The game, which started as a Nimzovich Defense, has now transposed into a Scandinavian Defense. The problem with the lines with ...Nc6 in these positions is that white can inflict structural damage because of the pin of the knight by the bishop. This also makes black think twice about castling queenside. Even so, 6...0-0-0 is a double-edged alternative.

7.h3 Bh5

Interestingly, when I looked up this line in my database, I found one of those strange statistical anomalies: 7...Bxf3 has a great score for black, while the logical text doesn't do as well. You always have to watch out for the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome in bases with a small sample. I think 7...Bh5, forcing white to weaken his pawn structure to eliminate the pin, is stronger than 7...Bxf3, which too easily falls in with white's plans to get the queen off the d-file and break the pin.

8.g4 Bg6 9.Ne5

My opponent, who has written several books on the Nimzovich, had been blitzing out his moves, while I was now on my own. At this point, I'd used 20 minutes to his 2! The text seems logical; black must do something about the threat of Nc4, winning the queen, so his next move is forced.

9...Bb4 10.Bd2

Likewise, white must deal with the threat of 10...Qxb5. Of course 10.Bxc6+ is possible, but not 10.Nxc6? Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxb5 when white's pawn structure is a mess. Upon returning home, I also discovered that 10.0-0, which I didn't consider, is playable. A game from my database continued 10...Bxc3 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.Qf3! (the move I had missed) followed by bxc3, with an interesting game.

10...Bxc3 11.Bxc6+ bxc6 12.Bxc3 Qd5 13.f3

This is an extremely unbalanced middlegame. Black has a bad queenside pawn structure but a nice grip on the d5 square, and white's kingside pawns leave some holes that have "knight outpost" written all over them. I'd say the chances are roughly equal.

After the game Myers told me that he had played this position several times, including wins against a couple of 2300+ players. He also said that one of the games was in his latest book on the Nimzovich Defense (I'd meant to order that book, too!). I'm glad I didn't know all of this during the game. At this point, I'd used 35 minutes and my opponent 5; he now doubled his thinking time and played...

13...Ne7

I don't know if this natural move can be “bad,” but it gives white some chances he probably shouldn't have. For white's position to work, he needs to eject the queen from d5, thus c2-c4 is called for. That means the bishop has to move. If black had played, for example, 13...Rb8, he would make it more difficult for white to undertake this action, and also place the rook on the half-open file.

14.Bb4

White takes the opportunity to improve the scope of his bishop. This also prepares the key c2-c4 advance and sets up some tactics. If, for example, black would play something foolish (say 14...a5? or 14...Rb8??) then 15.c4 Qd8 16.Bxe7 wins material because of the knight fork on c6.

14...Qb5

Black logically interferes with white's plan. Now 15.Qd2 Nd5 looks dangerous for white.

15.a3

So that 15...Nd5 can be met by 16.c4, forking the pieces.  As a result, white will get in c2-c4.

15...a5

A few weeks after playing this game, I actually did get around to ordering Myers' book on the Nimzovich. There I found that, up to this point, we had been following Mitch Weiss-Hugh Myers, Bettendorf (Iowa) 1981. National Master Weiss is a several time Iowa State Champion and a strong positional player, so I think my moves were probably on the right track. However, after 15…f6 16.c4 Qa6 17.Nxg6 Nxg6 18.Qc2 0-0-0 19.0-0-0 e5! black had the initiative and  went on to win. I think that 18.Qe2 is a much better try, as it calls black back to the defense of his e-pawn at a time when …e5 isn't as strong.

16.c4 Qb7 17.Bc3

Myers thought I would play 17.Bxe7 Kxe7 18.Nxg6, but I thought that black would have all the play down the half-open h- and b-files. I hate those kinds of positions.

17...f6

Logical – the knight is a pain for black. If white now plays 18.Nxg6, either recapture gives counterplay.

18.Nd3 Bxd3

Black cannot let the knight go to c5 – it would paralyze his game by fixing the doubled pawns and also covering the important central light squares – d7, e6, e4, d3.

19.Qxd3 c5!?

A very double-edged pawn sacrifice. Black pitches one of his doubled, isolated pawns but also frees his queen and the c6-square. I was expecting 19...Qb3, which seeks to exploit the queen's need to protect the c4 pawn, but I thought 20.a4 a good reply, as it fixes the a5-pawn on a dark square and allows Ra3, if necessary, to expel the queen.

20.dxc5 Qc6

This is a key decision point for white. Recognizing these points in a game and reacting properly is very important. White has a couple of logical ideas. First, I rejected 21.Rd1 because after 21...Qxc5 22.Qd7+ Kf7 white has no clear follow-up. Although 23.Rh2 Qxc4 24.R2d2 gives some play for the pawn, I thought black could sit tight with 24...Rhe8 threatening simply ...Qc6. Maybe white has enough, but this was just too speculative.

Next I had to decide whether or not I wanted to play a queenless endgame. Because of black's piece placement, white can play 21.Qe4, which guarantees the queen trade. Was this good for me, especially since 21.Qe3, simply protecting the pawn, was a viable option? Looking at the position schematically, I didn't see (after 21.Qe3) an easy way for white to combat the black plan of playing ...a4...Ng6...e5...Nf4...Ne6 and winning the c5-pawn. Now, granted, white gets some moves in there, but it seemed that black's queen was more relevant than mine.

Looking at the resulting positions, it seemed to me that while the black knight has some nice squares, it was still a game with pawns on both sides of the board – the bishop should be better.

21.Qe4 Qxe4+

Black wants to make the capture, because it further weakens the white pawn structure. Now ...e5 will deaden the bishop, and the e4-pawn may become weak.

22.fxe4 e5 23.Ke2 Ng6?

This underestimates white's play and is virtually the losing move. Black needs to take the time to slow white's queenside pawns with 23...a4!, when he has better chances than in the game. White would probably play 24.b4! anyway, since 24...axb3 25.Rhb1 gives an outside passed a-pawn – another situation where the knight is inferior to the bishop.

24.b4!

White recognizes that this continuation allows black to "win" back his pawn, because of the threat of playing ...Rxa1 Rxa1 Nf4+, but the price is steep.

This is an example of the relative value of things in chess. The h3-pawn means nothing to white – he intends to win by queening a b-pawn. Black has no similar way to quickly take advantage of the pawn majority he would get on the kingside by winning the h3-pawn – in fact, it just makes him misplace his knight on the edge of the board, far from the battle on the queenside.

24...Nf4+ 25.Ke3!

The king must stay as close as possible to the queenside. Again, worrying about the h-pawn serves no purpose.

25...axb4 26.axb4 Ke7

Likewise, black must keep his king near the center as well. 26...Kd7 would probably transpose to the game after 27.Rhd1+ Ke7 28.b5 Rxa1

27.b5 Rxa1 28.Rxa1

Better than 28.Bxa1?, which turns the bishop into a big pawn and robs the rook of the file it needs. Why on earth would white do that to protect the inconsequential h3 pawn?

28...Rd8!

Black fights back. The threat of ...Rd3+ forces white to defend.

 29.Ra3!

This is the key move that white envisioned when embarking on this course of play (with 24.b4). The rook and bishop will interfere with the black rook's ability to stop the advancing pawns. Now a move like 29...Ne6 is crushed by 30.Ra7, so black forges ahead with his "attack."

29...Rd3+ 30.Kf2 Nxh3+ 31.Kf1!

Now the threat is simply b6, since 31...Kd7 32.c6+ Ke6 33.c5 Rd1+ 34.Ke2 Rb1 35.Ra5! allows a theme like the game's – black is powerless to prevent Kd2-Kc2 ejecting the rook  from the b-file.

31...Rd1+

After the game Myers thought that 31...Nf4, getting the knight back into the game, was a saving defense. White still wins with 32.Ke1 Ng2+ (otherwise the rook doesn't get to the b-file) 33.Kf2 Nf4 34.b6, or 32...Ne6 33.b6, since 33...Nxc5? 34.Bb4! and either 34...Kd6 35.Rxd3+ or 34...Rxa3 35.Bxc5+ win immediately.

32.Ke2 Rb1 33.Kd2!

The winning plan. Once the rook is forced away, the queenside pawns advance triumphantly.

33...Nf2 34.Kc2 Rg1 35.b6 cxb6 36.cxb6 Kd7 37.b7, 1-0.

Since 37...Kc7 38.Rb3 Kb8 39.Ba5! and Bc7+ forces a new queen for white.