Diagonals vs Rank or Files?

I wonder which is better to have for a checkmate, do strong players like to use diagonals more?  I know lots of times even very good players like Kasparov or Alekhine won't see that a bishop from far away can attack their rook because so many other pieces make it confusing.  I think diagonals are more sneaky and hard to see, so they're the best to have.

Also because most players think it's better to have files with rooks, but every knows that already so actually diagonals will surprise your opponent and so are better, especially for winning his rooks or checkmate even!!

Also which squares are more better than others?  Light or dark?  Some people try to just get one, but I like to have some of both... but my friend who plays chess really good told me Bobby Fischer only used the light squares and he only lost 1 game and that was when he was 10 and only because he was playing Kasparov which wasn't fair but it was called the "greatest of the century" because Bobby actually saw 40 moves before what Kasparov would do, so Kasparov saw 41 so Bobby almost won but didn't even though he didn't use even 1 dark square for the whole game.

All true, and it was this game that sent Morphy screaming from the room, never to know sanity again.

hm

Getting any sleep lately Mr Honda ? I agreed there is no way you can see 40 moves ahead !

Actually... no not much lol, I hadn't thought about it till you mentioned.

Instead could have made it a "make your own thread" topic by giving some guidelines.

1.   Ask a silly question then answer it definitively.
2a. Support it with the logic "it's bad, so it will be unexpected, unexpected things work, therefore it's actually good"
2b. If it's about draw offers/rules or resignation then use the "it's rude otherwise" support.
3.  Make ridiculous claims about what GMs (or "strong" players) can see and at the same time will miss.  "They're amazing and see everything, but also drop pieces all the time so don't resign!"
4.  Add historical inaccuracies.

Problems with my post that come to mind include

Using correct terms like rank and file that a beginner wouldn't use.  Saying bishops can take rooks after a player misses a long line move i.e. I'm probably familiar with fianchettos.  Using a famous player's name that wasn't from my country (Kasparov/Alekhine).  I referenced a famous game (even though I mangled the name) "greatest of the century"

To continue choose only 1 post per page to respond to.  Rarely should this choice be the most thought out response, in fact it's best to chose a one or two sentence comment.  All responses in subsequent pages are made as if you haven't read the posts that came before it.  You're not allowed to change your original opinion even if the title of the topic is a question and everyone disagrees with you.

ideas about creating a forum was that by any chance coming from artfizz ? lol

I believe it was Anton Krumpfetz who first demonstrated the efficacy of employing reverse time displacement in chess.   His victim, Neil Goldschwan, showed up for their match only to be informed of his loss the previous day.  Now that's losing a tempo.

--Cystem 

devoid might be a victim of aspergers and have a heightened sense of structure and thus be a potential GM and his pee smells funny

ideas-for-new-thread-topics was actually Timotheous' idea.

OK, I'll give it a go:

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF MY OPENING?????!!!!

I know people are always saying it's better to control the centre with other pieces, but that's why boring players like Magnus Carlson always draw and loose coz they're too predictable.

You definitely can take credit for inventing that one

Nuclearturkey, that is the best opening I've ever seen, I forgot Morphy always won that way, and he was the best ever -- ever, this opening is sure to win many good games

umm i do a beter oping withch is very danguris if not cantaned carfuly due to maos of the back row ould be destroued

When I want to attack, I prefer open files all the way. There's nothing like a pair of rooks bearing down on a king (the same applies to queenside attacks as well) on adjacent files, or two or three major pieces dominating an open file ready to jump in the position and deliver mate.

It is true that diagonals are sneaky though, and the two bishops controlling two adjacent, open diagonals (I call them raking bishops) would be a close second.

"but my friend who plays chess really good told me Bobby Fischer only used the light squares and he only lost 1 game and that was when he was 10 and only because he was playing Kasparov which wasn't fair but it was called the "greatest of the century" because Bobby actually saw 40 moves before what Kasparov would do, so Kasparov saw 41 so Bobby almost won but didn't even though he didn't use even 1 dark square for the whole game."

Very off topic, but that's quite the run on sentence.

Off topic run on sentences are the hallmark of 10-year-old chess-know-it-all neophytes who post silly threads... not a terrible impersonation?

Posts 2 and 10 agree with me though, history and all.  I really do think diagonals are the best, and Alekhine would forget about my special bishop attack even though he could so see 40 moves ahead :p~~  My dad sees 40 moves ahead all day, he told me so, and I bet he could beat your dad at chess so you better ask him.

Oh wow, I thought this was serious lol

My excuse is I need some sleep.

Also I like how you correct my 40 moves ahead and the adjective vs adverb grammar but still no one corrected my "Bobby didn't use one dark square the whole game" when not only do half your pieces start on dark squares, the dark square bishop can't help but stay on them.

The 10 year old Fischer vs Kasparov (who was 20 years younger than Bobby) was another obvious one, but already pointed out.

Not that you were the only one who took it seriously, I'm glad I can be at least a little convincing when I try

Yes it was unfair of me :) and you're right about some people being this stupid, my whole deal was after reading yet another bishop vs knight, morphy vs fischer, resigning vs not resigning and endgame vs opening thread (and not sleeping in a while) I decide to parody them by making a rank vs diagonal.  Often the person asks the question, and then goes on to immediately answer it (and still not make any sense) and despite a horde of people correcting them they'd defend themselves to the bitter end :)

You may be new to the forum, but we get a lot of this type (I made this topic a few weeks ago I think).  Things like, "if I were down a queen vs a GM I still wouldn't resign till checkmate because that's the honorable, correct thing to do, and besides he might mess up and I'd win and furthermore he shouldn't be upset with me because it's not a matter of experience it's a matter of personal taste and some players just happen to prefer to play till checkmate, even GMs have done it"

Then + 100 posts later, on and on and after a month goes by a different guy but this time contending that the draw by stalemate is a wimpy rule and he doesn't know why they don't do away with it.