hello everyone on chess.com

Recently I have been wondering why knights and bishops are worth the same shouldn't one be worth more than the other. For an example:

Here is how much each piece is at the moment:

• Pawn = 1 point
• Knight = 3 points
• Bishops = 3 points
• Rooks = 5 points
• Queens = 9 points

Altogether on your side you will have 39 points

Where as if the knights was above the other it could look like the example below: (please note I only put the knight up by one point because it was just an example and it could be done with the bishop aswell)

• Pawn = 1 point
• Knight = 4 points
• Bishops = 3 points
• Rooks = 5 points
• Queens = 9 points

if you did that then you would have a side worth 41 points.

What I really want to know is why did the person who made the game of chess put the knights and the bishops as the same rank.

what do you think about this point?

(I am sorry if someone has posted a topic like this one before)

Look at any of the hundred forums with this topic.

 what are the names of these topic sand i did say i was sorry if any people had done this before

There is a search box for the site in the upper right. Here is one result.

Just below that is a forum search. Here is one result.

I dont know the names but I saw one as near as last night. And I didn't mean to sound accusing.

No.

"What I really want to know is why did the person who made the game of chess put the knights and the bishops as the same rank"

There's no particular person responsible for chess, and you've got it backwards. The piece values were quickly derived from practical play, after the modern moves of Knight and Bishop were already in use.

What he said. Here is an article on piece value you may find interesting.

Here is how i see it, the knight can cover every space in the board and fork many pieces at once, but must move at a slow pace, the bishop can go at a faster rate and can make pins which knights arent capable of, but are only able to cover half the board. So I prefer my knights but the truth is they are completely equal.

It always depends on the position whether a knight or a bishop is better. My advice: don't put too much faith in the point system, always take a critical look at the position itself. It can always be the exception to the rule.
Sometimes the bishop is worthless, and sometimes the knight is worthless:

If the value of a piece is dependent upon the position does it follow that while the position is variable so is the value of the piece. This seems to indicate that the value of a piece may only become evident later into the game. Could this mean that a rating of a piece may be sometimes determined as to its value dependent upon the opening?

You have to realize that points are not part of the game of chess.

They were invented by people writing chess books for beginners, to explain to beginners why some trades are good and some trades are bad (e.g., in general you wouldn't want to trade a queen for two pieces).

But if you want to improve beyond the beginner level, you should use them very sparingly, they're just a very crude rule of thumb.

When trying to evaluate who is better after some trade (possibly a series of trades), you should look at the resulting position, and see how useful your knight is in that position, versus how useful his bishop is in that position (if those two pieces are left, for instance). The details of the position are the only things that actually count.

So debating whether the points usually used are perfect is missing the point. It's like going to a cycling forum proposing faster training wheels.

The point values are just general guidelines.  But the values of the pieces depend on the position.  Sometimes, a bishop or knight can be much better than a rook and so the opposition goes to great lengths to sacrifice an exchange.

Value of a piece falls down on its control over the board. How many tiles do you control with a bishop or with a knight? It appears to be a maximum of 13 vrs. 8. Of course, the knight has the ability of "jumping" over, that represents a big advantage: its the tricky twist that makes it worth to balance for the lesser control over the board.

sometimes the knight is considered 3 points and the bishop 3.5 points, but it always depends on the position. in some cases a knight is worth more than a rook, in others the bishop dominates

You can't understand that no matter what answer is given.Even if say that you get it you will lie.You think the problem is what worth more but you don't realise that in a game of chess most of the times the same 2 pieces don't worth the same.For example, in the following position

Does the rook on f1 worths the same as the rook at a7?

The answer is no.Rf1 is much better. 

Does the bishop on d3 worths the same as the knight at f8?

The answer is no.Bd3 is better

Does the knight at e5 worths the same as the bishop  at e7?

The answer is again no.Ne5 is much better.

Let's get a good Black piece.Bb7 seems to be much better than , let's say , Nh3.Why?Because Bb7 is in an open diagonal hitting directly on opponent's k-side while Nh3 is at the edge of the board with very few options left .Yet , although it seems irrational , Nh3 is better than Bb7.The reason is that all white pieces cooperate excellently for a k-side attack and while Black's king is going to need as much help  as possible ,Bb7 , Qb8 and Ra7 are on the other side of the board.Even Rd8 , although  on an open file, is actually much worse than Ra1 as there is no cooperation among the black pieces.You will see that Rd8 also won't have the chance to move while the "passive" Ra1 will give the final blow. 

     So white's advantage on the main front of operations(k-side) is actually decisive and although Black has 3 pieces and 4 pawns protecting his king, in just 15 moves there will be nothing and the king will be helpless while the 4 black pieces on q-side(Qb8,Ra7,Bb7,Rd8) will never have the chance to move.

One of the greatest players and teachers of all times , Mikhail Botvinnik, gives an amazing lesson on how important cooperation is :

In chess the critical question is not if the knight is better than the bishop.The critical question is how to achieve the maximum possible cooperation between the pieces as their value is related directly not only with their placement but also with their "ability" to cooperate.