8 | |||||||||
7 | |||||||||
6 | |||||||||
5 | |||||||||
4 | |||||||||
3 | |||||||||
2 | |||||||||
1 | |||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
5k2/ppp2ppp/1b6/8/6b1/2P5/PP4PP/RN2K3 w - - 0 20
"An unbalanced position has arisen straight out of the opening, in which, with an open centre, Black has a pawn and the bishop pair for the exchange. Is it enough compensation?"
Glenn Flear wrote:
The defender probably has more chances of successfully defending with the pair of bish-
ops than "with other minor piece combinations. This seems to hold true even when the board
isn’t opened up for bishops. Indeed, there is a certain school of thought that claims that ’a
pair of bishops equals a rook and knight in the ending’. I’m not sure that this assertion can be
proven, but I decided to look at it from a statistical point of view.
From a sample of 68 high-level games in the NQE of rook and knight vs two bishops (this
time with players rated 2550 and above), there were 30 wins for the rook< and knight duo, 20
for the bishop pair, and 18 draws.
The number of wins achieved by the bishops seems quite high, which may reflect the
double-edged nature of this imbalance, but the overall percentage is a respectable 57% to
43%. We can interpret this as such: a pair of bishops shouldn't be underestimated, but the
rook and knight are still superior.
G. Kasparov wrote:
Indeed, two bishops and a pawn are often sufficient compensation for a rook and knight.
When the side down the Exchange has the bishop pair, my data shows he needs only 1.15 pawns to make things even.