I would say both are as good, but bishop pair and knight pair are both better than bishop + knight.

Personally, I would say that it depends on the stage of the game.  In the beginning to midgame, knights are preferred as they can be formidable attackers with many pieces in play.  Also, knights can jump over other pieces.  Bishops are better near the end of the game as they can move across the board easily.

Defensively, knights are more of a challenge for me. I have a hard time predicting where the knight is going to end up in 3-4 moves because there are so many options. The bishop is pretty straight forward and I only get surprised when I overlook the position.

At the same time, offensively, I perfer the bishop, mostly for the same reasons. Im still in the starting stages of my play and the knight is still too complicated to use in my planning.

II say knight because if you check the king in the beginning of the game, there is more valuable pieces like the queen or even the rook. also bishops are still very strong but the horse is probably worth 3.5 and the bishop is 3.25

In beginning and midgame, I've found that knights are usually more effective in a crowd.

After the herd has thinned by the endgame, bishops are able to control larger amounts of the board.

A lot depends on how judiciously or savagely your opponent uses his/her pieces.

Just my $0.02....

For me in the attack ( beginning ) its good to have a bishop, but in the end game, its good to have a knight..

Knights is the only piece in a chess where u cant block it when u r undercheck..

to me i would say bishops are better. bishops are 3.5 points while knights are 3.25.

For more info on the topic, a great book on the subject is Jeremy Silman's Reassess Your Chess.

Which ever piece has the King in check, or has checkmate.

Bishops get more value in the following circumstances:

- Bishop pair (when 2 bishops are on the board): easier to mate with + pawns can't just hide on one colour

- Open position.  Bishops can zoom from one side of the board from another

- Bad bishop vs Good bishop: If a bishop is blocked in by its own pawns and is on a differant colour then enemy pawns is a bad bishop.  That is often reason enough to trade it for a knight.

 

Knights get more value in the following circumstances

- Development: Knights take several turns to reach useful areas of the board.  This means a knight developed to such areas (typically the opponents side of the board or an outpost).  Getting an outpost is often worth a trade of knight for bishop.

- Closed positions: Knights can jump over pieces, and knights do better when pieces are clumped together (less distance to move)

There is no magic formula though, over time you have to analyze which is better for yourself.  Although its usually the bishop =)

thanks a lot! so if i play the pirc defense than a knight would  be better cus its a closed position.

It completly depends on the position. In closed positions where  the pawns  are locked in, the pieces have to move around them. Knights have the advantage due to the fact they can jump over the pawns. In more open games where pawns are less or allow more space for pieces  to move then the bishop usually has the advantage especially if u have both the bishops, as they can attack from a long distance, where the knight can not.....

Depends on the position unless your Mikhail Chigorin

Regarding the Bisop/Knight value I was under the impression that the 3.5 value went to the knight in the beginning or even the middle game when it has the advantage of jumping over pieces. During the end game the bishop has that edge when it can dominate lines and the 3.5 edge goes to the bishop.