Thank you for this great overview, this is much more sensible than most other comments I have read concerning the knight-bishop issue.
A few remarks:
- As you have observed correctly, the knight is a valuable piece in tactical melées, due to its unique forking ablities. Yet I wouldn't agree that it is the more valuable piece for a middlegame kingside attack.
- The knight is sometimes referred to as the "best defender of its king". Obviously this is due to the fact that for defending a piece usually doesn't have to have a long range. In this context the following basic example may be of interest:
The knight blocks the direct attack on the king, while at the same time it covers the squares e3 and g3, thus preventing any direct checks. Patterns like this have helped me defend sharp positions more than once (with some other material on the board as well, of course).
- Also you have adequately noticed the knight's value for blockading pawns. This is extremely true in the middlegame where there are usually other pieces around the pawns in question, which in turn can be attacked by the knight. In the endgame the knight is stil a good blockader but tends to get into difficulties with distant passed pawns, where his little range may come to tell. In cases like that (minor piece endgames with few, scattered pawns), it is often the bishop side which is superior.
- You point out the value of the bishop pair, quite truely so. Thus you reach the conclusion that you should maintain that pair during exchanges, if possible, but that if you have only one bishop left, it is of little importance which piece you swap off. While this is generally true, an important extension of this may be the question if the opponent still has got the bishop pair, and which of your pieces is likely to be able to force an exchange against one of these bishops. Making this question a priority is likely to save some difficult games.
- Some players maintain that in endgames the Q+N constellation has got the advantage over the Q+B team. As I see it, this has not yet been proven.
Anyways, in his superb book "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" John Watson devotes quite some space to minor piece issues and claims that the correct use of the minor pieces is a major part of the strength of today's grandmasters. I would recommend this book to everyone who is interested in further details on this issue.
I'm looking forward to your comments on this ;)
Cheers,
Torkil
Hello all:
I've just responded to another forum on this 'hot-button' issue in the chess world, and my answer proved much longer than I thought. Still it was not complete, but long enough that I feel it needs its own posting on a new comment string. Many people have been very one-sided on this issue, and that is clearly the wrong approach. Please consider my summary below and provide feedback and/or additions and necessary:
[WARNING: THIS IS BASICALLY A MINI-ESSAY - SO GRAB A CUP OF JAVA!]
A few things/facts that need to be kept in mind (with knight vs bishop):
1)Every game is different. This means, different contexts and space (closed/open), different material availability (e.g. # of each piece), and different dynamic (the time situation for each position - tempo issues).
2)What makes a piece of value or not is primarily whether or not it is being used properly and/or is well situated. A bishop, even if one were to value it higher than a knight, is worthless on its original square when all the action is happening elsewhere... Therefore knowledge of how to use each piece and where to place it (like the general strategy of placing knights outposted on the 5th rank) will make the difference.
3)Bishop pairs are of great importance. You'll see in many analyses that when one loses their bishop pair (only have 1 left) compared to another oponent with both bishops and other material being equal in 'points', then the bishop pair player usually has the advantage barring some great positional dsicrepancy. The reason for this, as was mentioned early when it comes to the # of squares accessed by knights vs bishops, is that with both bishops around, the dissadvantage of the bishops compared to knights is basically cancelled out. Indeed, if we are to survive the midgame, the board will inevitably open up so having both bishops in the endgame is a clear advantage.
4)Mating possibilities must be considered. Should we have a choice between 2 knights , 1 knight and 1 bishop, or 2 bishops for an endgame against a lone king, every player knowledgeable in the basic mates knows that the possibility of mating increases proportionally to the presence of bishops (that is to say they have been listed here from least to most possible). As such, the mating difficulty decreases according to the above order. Indeed, 2 knights is impossible without a deliberate blunder by the oponent, knight and bishop is the hardest of the basic mates to accomplish in the 50 move period, and 2 bishops is much easier, though still a mild challenge. This is important in considering the value of the pieces.
5) Knights are known to be of great use in blocading in the endgame. So as a defensive tool they are great for blocking off pawns that would otherwise march to promotion or to remotely secure the queening square. Because of the knights unique attack pattern, it is great for harassing the oponents king. Few other pieces can consistently target the king like the knights, as often the availalble squares to a king are limited by the attacked squares of the knight, and those that aren't can be directly attacked by the knight on the next move. This unique attack pattern also makes it hard for the king to both protect the queening square and to attack the knight in many situations. For a bishop, the king need only stay on the opposite colour. So even in the endgame, depending on the situational needs, the knights may be more valuable.
6)The bishop can form a battery with the queen, whereas the knight can not, nor can the knight 'connect' with any other piece strongly except for itself. As such. Though once again, this is more relevant when the board is open enough for batteries to be of greater value.
7)Lastly, the knight is the most common choice for underpromostion because of its unique abilities.
Conclusions:
-If you are relying on minor pieces for mating, or if it seems that it may come down to that in the endgame, then clearly the bishop is of greater value.
-If you have a choice between having a pair of knights and a pair of bishops then choose the bishop pair. If you have already lost 1 bishop, the relevance is far less, and indeed more often than not, you should elect to keep the knight.
-It matters which pieces your oponent has left as well - also do you want a balanced or imbalanced situation? If imbalance is sought, usually I choose piece diversity over strength in numbers of one kind. More possibilities that way..
-Overall there is far more potential with the knight. If you need to keep your options open, or are the kind of player who delays castling until the last possible second (to keep the oponent guessing at which side you'll castle) then choose the knight over the bishop.
-If the game will be a very open one, and/or you are racing towards the endgame (and especially if any or many major pieces have already been exchanged) choose to keep the bishops, i.e. they will be of greater value.
-If you still have you queen, then the bishop can be sacrificed well before the knight - no one else moves like the knight does!
-Knights can get in and out of the action/melee better than any other piece. When the situation calls for up-close-and personal - definitely stick to the knight like as the game approaches the midgame and things are more closed off. In otherwords, if you are aiming to mate in the midgame the knight is stronger usually. If you are trying to mate in the endgame, the bishop will be of greater value more times than not.
Hope these points clear up some of the issues, and have helped out. I welcome and debate/banter :)