Give up the bishop pair when you're up in material?

Hello,

I know that the bishop pair in an open position is a valuable asset, but I also know that when you're up in material (even just a pawn) it is often advantageous to simplify the position into a winning endgame. Suppose you're up a piece for a pawn with the bishop pair. Is it safe to say that simplifying--even if it means giving up the bishop pair--is probably a good idea?

Thanks!

John

Yes, because it's difficult to get checkmate with two bishops ..

Thanks!

But what if you're up a whole piece for a pawn?

Typically, an exchange of pieces will work in your favor when you are already a piece up.

Conversely, an exchange of Pawns will favor the defender.

#1
"Suppose you're up a piece for a pawn with the bishop pair. Is it safe to say that simplifying--even if it means giving up the bishop pair--is probably a good idea?"
++ It depends on the position, but generally: no.
"An endgame with an extra pawn is won, the plan is to queen the pawn.
An endgame with an extra piece is won, the plan is to trade the piece for a pawn." - Capablanca
If you have the bishop's pair against a pawn and a knight, and you trade one bishop for the knight, then it is a draw.
If there are more pawns on both sides, then trading one bishop for the knight allows the opponent to put his pawns on the color of your missing bishop.
Example: this position wins for the bishop's pair

This is exactly what I needed! Thank you. Of course you wouldn't want to give up the bishop pair.

I generally don't worry about "the bishop pair". In my opinion, too many players obsess about bishops vs. knights, so much that they're willing to go through awkward contortions just to avoid trading away their bishops.

I believe that mindset can be more harmful than helpful.

In my opinion, you should just try to find the best move you can, in each position. If the best move you can find is to exchange your bishop for a knight, then go with that. If the best you can find is to avoid exchanging your bishop, then go with that, instead.

But don't rely blindly on some dogmatic belief about the value of the bishop pair.

The bishop pair can be valuable in certain positions. But it shouldn't be a thought in your mind in all situations. (Likewise, the knight pair can be extremely valuable in certain positions, too. It's all relative.)

Consider this line:

White (Carlsen) willingly gives up his bishop pair in the opening. In a World Championship game.

If the bishop pair were so important and valuable, Carlsen would've avoided the exchange and played something like Bb5-Be2, instead (which is another playable line).

Just food for thought.

So many great ideas here. Thank you all.

#9
"If the best move you can find is to exchange your bishop for a knight, then go with that."
++ Yes, of course. However, look at BxN like sacrificing the minor exchange, just like the best move is sometimes RxN sacrificing the exchange.
In the Carlsen-Anand game white sacrifices the minor exchange 6 Bxd7+ to demonstrate that 5...a6 is loss of tempo. In the position of the diagram white has the move and has only 5 pieces at their starting squares. White has a centralised queen Qd4 and is ready to castle. Black has 6 pieces on their starting squares and his king's side is totally undeveloped, so the black king cannot castle soon. So 6 Bxd7+ is a justified sacrifice.
Likewise Lasker and later Fischer found 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 justified to demonstrate that 3...a6 is loss of tempo. Lasker argued that 3...Nf6 is correct, while Steinitz argued that 3...d6 is correct. A tempo is worth about 0.33 pawn as we know from gambits. So  saving a tempo is worth sacrificing the minor exchange.

'I generally don't worry about "the bishop pair".'
++ To demonstrate the power of the bishop's pair:
Even this position is a white win:

If we're talking math, then we could declare that the value of a tempo (0.3 pawns) is roughly equal to the value difference between a knight (3 pawns) and a bishop (3.3 pawns).

The problem with such math is that it suggests that piece values (and tempi values) are fixed and absolute. This is not the case, in reality. A piece's value changes, depending on the position. And these values continue to change, throughout the game.

Even the cost of a tempi changes in value, as the game progresses.

One bishop might become very valuable, as a game goes on. Or it might become close to worthless.

This is because piece values aren't just mathematically set - they're dictated by the needs of the position.

Knifing down an unchallenged diagonal toward the opponent's vulnerable kingside? A bishop's worth might be closer to that of a rook, or higher.

Sitting firmly on an uncontested outpost, deep in the enemy's camp? A knight's worth may be closer to that of a queen.

Piece values aren't fixed.

My qualm with the "value the bishop pair!" mindset is that it encourages players to be inflexible in how they value bishops. They begin to think that the bishop's value is fixed, and that the fixed value is always higher than knights.

That's simply incorrect, and it's the kind of mindset that might hold a player back from improving.

My opinion: if you're deciding on exchanging a bishop for a knight, consider the needs of the position. Consider the pawn structure. Consider the material imbalances. Look ahead. Calculate. Draw upon what you know about the game.

You can keep the "bishop pairs are valuable!" mantra in your mind, if you must, but don't treat it as inflexible dogma to rely on.

#15
"if you're deciding on exchanging a bishop for a knight, consider the needs of the position"
++ Yes, but likewise:
if you're deciding on exchanging a rook for a knight, consider the needs of the position.

"the value of a tempo (0.3 pawns) is roughly equal to the value difference between a knight (3 pawns) and a bishop (3.3 pawns)"
++ Yes, that is correct. That is why in the above example #9 Carlsen-Anand both 6 Bxd7+ (saving the tempo) and 6 Be2 (saving the bishop's pair) are reasonable moves.
Likewise why in the Ruy Lopez 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 both 4 Bxc6 (saving the tempo) and 4 Ba4 (saving the bishop's pair) are reasonable.

"bishop pairs are valuable"
++ Yes. If in the initial position you remove a bishop from one side and a knight from the opposing side, then the side with the bishop's pair wins.

a castle and bishop is a walmart queen. it takes bof bishops AND castle to emulate a blue blood queen. only cuz now the diagonals can cover all 64 squares...like elizabeth.

It would be correct if the value of pieces were a static, unchanging thing.

But the value of pieces are dynamic, in flux, continually changing throughout the game.

Due to the structure of things, a bishop might become "bad", while another might become "good" - the former's value drops, while the latter's value rises.

The bad bishop, in such a case, would no longer be worth 3.3 pawns. Its worth might drop to 2.3, or even less, depending on the position.

Similarly, a knight's value might jump to 5.0 or higher, if it were to occupy a critical, unchallenged outpost.

(And so on ...)

My main point is that piece, pawn, and even tempi values can vary as the game goes on.

To play chess well, one should (IMO) have more mental flexibility than to simply cling, firmly, to the belief that "bishops are worth more than knights".

Assigning pawn values to pieces is great for instructional purposes, especially for beginners, when learning the rules of the game. But the more experienced players get, the less they tend rely on such values, and the more they rely on other things: like logically, and concretely, assessing the needs of the position.

You won't see a grandmaster hemming and hawing about whether or not he should exchange a bishop for a knight, due to a 0.3 pawn value difference between the pieces. But you will see him ponder the result of the exchange, based on its positional benefits and consequences.

Unlikely. An advantage of roughly 1/3rd of a Pawn is nowhere near enough to win. The drawing margin is much wider than that.

#19
The advantage is larger than 0.33 pawn:
The side with the bishop's pair
1) can immediately strike at the b- or g-pawn normally defended by the absent bishop
2) knows which bishop is lacking and can position its pawns according to that information

#21
Of course both sides can blunder, but with best play from both sides the bishop's pair should prevail. Engines rate this starting position as +1, that should suffice to convert to a win.

#23
Stockfish says +0.9