Which is better?

Jump to forum:
 
15th May 2009, 06:37pm
#1
by hansel
Santa Clara, CA United States
Member Since: Sep 2007
Member Points: 1741

Which is better. A knight or a bishop? Please let us discuss it her in this forum topic. Thank you.

15th May 2009, 06:55pm
#2
by bondiggity
United States
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 1561

This question has been discussed multiple times in the forums. 

 

From Larry Kaufman:

 

OK, what did I discover? Let's start with the age-old question of bishop vs. knight. The conclusions are clear and consistent: although the average value of a bishop is noticeably higher than the average value value of a knight, this difference is entirely due to the large value of the bishop pairIn other words, 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.

15th May 2009, 06:59pm
#3
by chesshole
Kansas United States
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 39

yeah that dood's wrong teh knight is bettor

15th May 2009, 07:13pm
#4
by A_Protagonist
Illinois United States
Member Since: Mar 2009
Member Points: 26

I can see what you're saying, but I wouldn't agree with that generalization.  It depends what openings you use and how you develop your middle game.  Not all "rookies" value the knight in this process.  Most rookies I think actually only value the knight as a setup piece in the opening to take early control of the middle and maybe flout some opposing plans (fork a rook, etc.).  The reason bishop is typically better than knight overall is because a knight can land fork moves that presumably a better player would not fall for, while a bishop can pin pieces to the king, queen, or other pieces depending on the play, and even the best players will get skewered or pinned now and again.

15th May 2009, 07:35pm
#5
by socket2me
Ft. Collins, Colorado United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 554

I'm sick of this debate, and I still spent 15 sec. to write this note.  This has been written by many.... check it out??

16th May 2009, 09:24am
#6
by crazy_attack
sunnyvale United States
Member Since: Sep 2008
Member Points: 1175

depends.

knights are better in crowded positions, bishops are better in open positions

16th May 2009, 09:43am
#7
by zxb995511
Barcelona Spain
Member Since: May 2009
Member Points: 141

Queens are better.

16th May 2009, 10:00am
#8
by TheGrobe
Calgary Canada
Member Since: Nov 2007
Member Points: 4617

An extensive evaluation (by Larry Kaufman) that gives some insight into the complexity and subjectivity of the question posed:

http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

16th May 2009, 10:04am
#9
by HotFlow
KL, Malaysia Malaysia
Member Since: Sep 2007
Member Points: 2270

I think knights are better in all positions.

16th May 2009, 02:58pm
#10
by e4forme
Tennessee United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 2372

I agree with most of the thousands of replies to this question at this site...

16th May 2009, 11:19pm
#11
by AznLitoBoi03
United States
Member Since: Nov 2007
Member Points: 5

it has to do with the positions that they are in, but the knight is generally more useful because of what it can do, like checking the king even when there are pieces in the way and causing the king to either move or taking the knight to end the check.

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.