Of course it matters! In open positions where the bishop has plenty of room to move, it is normally better than a knight. If the position is closed (the pawns are locked up with each other), then a knight is normally better. Also, if you only have pawns on one side of the board, then a knight is usually better because it doesn't have to worry about stopping a pawn from queening on both sides of the board. It takes a knight longer to move across the board than a bishop. If you do have pawns on both sides of the board, then a bishop is usually better because it can move a longer distance faster. Also, if you only have pawns on one side of the board, it is normally better than a bishop because it has access to every square & speed isn't quite as important. As I said earlier in closed positions a knight is the piece to go with the vast majority of the time because it can hop over pawns.KillaBeez wrote: The real question is:  Does this really matter?  Knight and Bishop are practically worth the same.  And it's apples and oranges.

---

I find myself liking the knights more, and enjoy getting them to one of the center four squares.  My bishops are limited by pawns a lot of the time.

It all depends on the situation, the placement of the pieces and how far in the game you are...That being said, a knight can access no more than eight squares in one move, where a bishop can access 13 squares maximum. In openings, knights are probably more useful, because they can cover some very important squares, supporting the pawns and such.

There's probably a reason they're both worth three points

it depends from the position...in a close position knight can better while in an opened position bishop is stronger

sry..can BE better

Knight can be a better attacker in the middle game but bishops it is easyer to get checkmate in the end game. I would like to have a knight over a bishop.

 

I like the knight better.

It may move slow but its is awesome when it comes to forks and sacrifices

My favorite

and the favorite... of AMERICA 

All games must start with each player having the same two knights and two bishops.  As the game progresses a player tends to trade either to gain either an advantage or to maintain equality.  A player then tends to fashion his game to suit the material he has versus the material the opponent has.

To answer the question therefore, the knight or the bishop does not really matter.  What matters is the result and we know from experience that either or both can be  very deadly in forcing one's opponent to resign or give up the exchange. 

unclemike wrote:

All games must start with each player having the same two knights and two bishops.  As the game progresses a player tends to trade either to gain either an advantage or to maintain equality.  A player then tends to fashion his game to suit the material he has versus the material the opponent has.

To answer the question therefore, the knight or the bishop does not really matter.  What matters is the result and we know from experience that either or both can be  very deadly in forcing one's opponent to resign or give up the exchange. 

---

 In my opinion. 2 knights vs 2 bishop it would be bishop but 1 knight vs 1 bishop it would  be the knight.But certaintly it depends on the position.

2 knights for me,

so i can fork out all the terrorists... 

i prefer the bishop ( if position is not counted) because the can control so much more space and even cut off half of the knight's spaces where it can move at once

How many times has this question been asked? :-)

 

I tend to think the bishops have a little more usability considering their ability to traverse the whole board in one move, whereas the knight is limited to only advancing two ranks, and that they are a natural foil to rooks.

However, the knight also has the advantages of an awkward movement pattern that many people forget to look for potential forks with. It is also the natural foil to the queen (you can attack a queen with a knight without necessarily having protection for it, is what I mean by saying this, whereas a bishop or rook would need protection else they be taken). Also, the ability to jump other pieces is a plus. Also a minus though, as a particular piece you'd like to take might be in the knight's movement pattern, but not on his landing space. So you've got to spend precious time maneuvering him to where he can attack that piece, by which time it might have moved.

Not that the bishop doesn't have his drawbacks as well. If your dark-squared gets taken out, all your opponent has to do is stay off of dark squares and he/she never has to fear a diagonal attack (assuming the queens have been traded, of course).

 

Wow. Didn't mean to ramble like that. Hope this helps some people. I do recall reading a book that said a bishop was worth 3 and a fraction points. It didn't really say why, though. Oh well.

All in all, I think I generally value the bishop a little more and am a little more reluctant to trade it for a knight unless the situation calls for it. For instance, if I've set up a dark diagonal pawn structure making my dark-square bishop inherently weak and there's a knight deep into my territory that's protected. Then I might trade them. But it does ultimately depend on the situation.

Jim Essman (CoT)

Right on the money

That was a great answer

Thanks for sharing kyuudou (Jim Sman) 

jstrong wrote: if i had to begin a game with one or the other, i'd choose the knight.

---

 me too

 

I would prefer to play a king pawns and knight endgame against a king pawns and bishop opponent any day. Its so much easier to capture their pawns  that way