Some of those things I said in too strong of nomenclature. I wish I
could express with finesse. I just meant to say that sometimes
attacking a piece that can easily get away could be improved upon by
looking for a different move.

And my contempt for knights is not an opinion expressly held by the company.

Lane Larson wrote:
> Some of those things I said in too strong of nomenclature.  I wish I
> could express with finesse.  I just meant to say that sometimes
> attacking a piece that can easily get away could be improved upon by
> looking for a different move.

Attacking a piece that can move away may be good for several reasons.
The piece may have to move to an inferior square, you may gain a tempo,
you may gain access to an important square.

But yes, if made with no particular reason such attacks are generally a
bad idea.

>
> And my contempt for knights is not an opinion expressly held by the
> company.

Watson in his "Secrets of positional play" lays out the case for the
bishops, using statistics. But he also shows how to play against the
bishop pair, and the technique outlined is not that which I learned from
most books of instruction. Numerous examples are given.

While the bishops prevail on the whole, there are far more cases which
are good for the knights than I had expected, but only if the player
with the knights disregards the old rules.

William Hyde