Which piece is powerful? Bishop or Knight?

Bishop & Knight exchanges are common in early session of a chess game. Who will gain? The one who loses Knight or the one who loses the Bishop?! Any thoughts?

maga if u keep the knight in the middle it can cover 8 squares ,but if u keep the bishop it covers 14 squares ,if it is an open position definitely a pair of bishops give you an advantage

a pawn is more valuable and powerful than a queen in the right position.

Piece value is relative

Your first post raises the question of an early trade.  If the trade changes nothing in the pawn structure then usually its a bad idea to give up a bishop in whats probably an uncommitted position.  Your actual title of the thread though makes me think...well if the Bishop cannot logically trade for the knight, does that not give the Knight greater impunity to act, making it in one sense the more powerful?  Just a thought.

bishop

thanks for fischer's games...

I like my horsies but teh bishops are supposed to be one RCH strongar. 

In blocked positions, knights are better, in open the bishops.

But in average, bishops are slightly better.

Learning to identify inferior/superior pieces both in YOUR army and your opponents army, and manipulating the development of the board to accomodate to your strengths (or your opponents weaknesses) is detrimental to your success in any given position.

For example, If you see that you have the chance of closing up the position in a few moves, and your opponents most active piece is a bishop, why not take advantage of that information?  The Bishop is utterly useless if the center of the board is in a grid lock, therefore making your knights VASTLY superior to your opponents Bishop.  That being said, it would be foolish to trade your knights away in this situation, because the knights meneuverability is hardly effected in a closed position.  

The notion that Knights have a value of 3 points, and Bishops have a value of 3.25 (or whatever) is absolutely ridiculous, because the value varies from position to position.  There isn't a "one rule fits all" when it comes to the value of pieces, because every game is different.  Passed pawns can be worth as much as Queens in many situations.  I think it gives people a very poor framework on which to base their assumptions about chess; that there is one rule, set in stone forever and ever.

The great chess players learned by experimentation.

With a little bit of creativity, the information I just provided can be leveraged into infinity.  It will improve your game dramatically.  Trading your pieces at random and without purpose is a terrible way to open a game...  whether the position is closed or open.

It is one thing knowing that the knight is marginally inferior to the bishop, contingent on position.  For most of us, we are amateurs and their strengths relatively are reflected in our ability to use them properly.  I struggled with knights for years, not how to move them but how to best maneuver them and think about where they wanted to be - then I did a knight's tour for the first time and the practising of it developed my play with that piece till for quite a while after it my play with it was far better than my play with the bishop.  I'd like to think I am better with the bishop now but there is one last thing I would point out - someone (cant remember who) said "One bishop = half a bishop, two bishops = three bishops".  Certainly a saying that got me thinking for a while.

thanks for the tip!!

"One bishop = half a bishop, two bishops = three bishops"

I like my knights better, in blitz. Hop hop fork, hop hop fork X-D

As a beginning player, I think that knights are the more useful piece, but I tend to notice that with advanced players the way they can maneuver their bishops can be absolutely devestating.

depends on postion in a closed game knights are better because the can jump over pieces in open games bishops are better because they cover a lot of the board.

Tough question! Depends on the situation i guess.

equal

I think a Knight would be more powerful because a Bishop doesn't do any fighting or anything of the sort. :P

I was speaking to a friend recently, who is on chess.com but I have known for years and I was shocked to find out that although he has been a league over the board chessplayer for many years, he allocated points for each piece as 3.  I told him, slightly aghast, that when I learned the game it was 3.5 for the bishop, 3.25 for the knight.  He understood of course but I found it totally horrific that he had learned this way; I assumed that all books for beginners allocated the points the way I had learned.

at the very start of the game the Bishop is about .17 of a Pawn better than a N. 

after that the value for both B and N may go up or down depending on each move made.

I have played a lot of games where in the endgame the N was much better than the B.

n