That's a strange piece: he is a knight, he looks like a horse and he may become octopus one day.
Bishop and Knight - Which is Better?
Sort:
wafflemaster your posts both end in black winning, not white... dramatically!
Now that I see this page, you did it on purpose?
waffllemaster wrote:
Yes, mate in 1. So in spite of their fancy different movements it really depends on all the rest of the pieces on the board doesn't it! And because your opponent is free to set up different position starting at move 1, you can't really say one is better than the other.
You could look at thousands of master games to get some statistics... but then you'd just find like Kauffman did, that their value is about 1/50th of a pawn difference, i.e. statistically meaningless.
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Except in the case of bishop pair. Let's just post this link in all forums like this.
Yeah, I have it saved in a txt document with an excerpt. I had been copy and pasting that in the bishop vs knight threads, but this time I felt like goofing around... this is only the millionth time I've seen one heh.
Here it is:
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
"The method of attacking this problem was to start with a large database of about 925,000 games, then to select out of only those games where both players were listed as having FIDE ratings of at least 2300 (the standard for the FIDE Master title), so that my conclusions would be based on the play of reasonably strong players. That still left me with nearly 300,000 games. Using the "ChessBase" program (other database programs also have the needed capability), I would select the games with various specified material imbalances and with specified pieces being present or absent. Then I would record the average difference between performance rating and player rating, rather than using the raw scoring percentage, as that might be biased if stronger players tended to have one side of the imbalance.
OK, what did I discover? Let's start with the age-old question of bishop vs. knight. The conclusions are clear and consistent: . . . an unpaired bishop and knight are of equal value (within 1/50 of a pawn, statistically meaningless), so positional considerations (such as open or closed position, good or bad bishop, etc.) will decide which piece is better."
FirebrandX wrote:
Ugh... Another one of these topics. The answer to the question as always:
It depends on the position.
Sometimes knights are better, sometimes bishops are better. For example in the endgame, you cannot deliver mate with 2 knights, but you can with one or both of the knights being replaced with a bishop each.
Uhm, what you have there is actually a false statement. That only holds true if you are talking King and 2 Knights vs a Lone King.
However, give Black a pawn. Now it depends on where the pawn is blocked. If it is ON OR BEHIND the Troitzky line (which is a4-b6-c5-d4-e4-f5-g6-h4) and blocked, the Knights win. If it is in front of that line, it's a draw. So, for example, Black pawn on c5, White Knight on c4, another White Knight, White King, and Black King exist on the board, White wins. Move the Black pawn to c4 and the White Knight to c3, it's a draw!
That only holds true if you are talking King and 2 Knights vs a Lone King.
That's actually false, too. King and two knights can deliver mate to a lone king. However, they cannot FORCE it.
Here is a good example of why I like bishops over knights.
My opponent had been making a fool of me the entire game. But as the endgame approached, he began to go astray.
I was playing black.
Generally a bishop is a bit stronger than a knight. Practically it really depends on the position, but it is easier to open than to close the game.
I would like to point out that there's a such thing as "the bishop pair". No one ever refers to the knight pair.
There is nothing special in the knight pair. The bishop pair fixes the bishop's only disadvantage, which is that it can control only light/dark squares. If you have a bishop pair, you have control over every square (both light and dark squares) so the bishop's disadvantage disappear. If you have a knight pair, well, it can be good at closed position of course, but there is nothing special about it.
xxvalakixx wrote:
There is nothing special in the knight pair. The bishop pair fixes the bishop's only disadvantage, which is that it can control only light/dark squares. If you have a bishop pair, you have control over every square (both light and dark squares) so the bishop's disadvantage disappear. If you have a knight pair, well, it can be good at closed position of course, but there is nothing special about it.
I know, that's the point I was trying to make. No one refers to a "knight pair" because it doesn't offer any kind of advantage, whereas possissing the bishop pair does.
Two comments:
When I was first learning chess, I was told that Knights were worth 3.2 and Bishops worth 3.5. The only explanation I was given was that Bishops were better in the endgame.
Comparing those pieces is like comparing a Shotgun and a Handgun. In some cases, one is as good as the other. Given certain plans, one might consider one option to be more well-suited than the other. And players are likely to learn to use one or the other differently, and to develop habits and preferences.
wELL, WHOS THE SHOTGUN AND WHOS THE HANDGUN?
Just bumping this important topic back up top.
which is better, a black knight or a white knight ?
The leftmost one.