Most people I play with at school and my uncle say's, a bishop is a lot more powerful but there ment to be equal ?

Theres already been plenty on about this. Look through the forums and blogs. Generally, they are about the same. Bishops more in open positions, Knights in closed. 2 Bishops more than Knight + bishop or 2 Knights.

First of all, it's "which".

 Second of all, it depends on the position.

Yeah. This topic has been asked over and over... search the forums for details. mxdplay4 did a good job summarizing the main points.

 

 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/knights-or-bishops
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/bishop-vs-knight2

I search but nothing comes up about this.And looked in the dictionnary and it says that witch is right.

look again (on both counts)

The "forum search" feature doesn't seem to be working too well when the search involves two keywords... I posted two previous articles above.

Maybee yur dictionnary spels wurds rong two.

 

Great advert for the crumbling British education system

rich wrote: I search but nothing comes up about this.And looked in the dictionnary and it says that witch is right.

---

 "Witch" and "which" are both English language words, with different meanings. In this topic, I doubt you're talking about practitioners of magic, so "which" is the spelling you should be using here.

 

As for knights and bishops, they both have their pros and cons, depending on the situation. There have been many articles and books written about this in the chess world.

 

--Fromper 

Knights are better in blitz !

e-check wrote:

Maybee yur dictionnary spels wurds rong two.

 

Great advert for the crumbling British education system

---

 Oh, in Britain as well?

all i gotta say is

1)everone else is right about you spelling which wrong. tho to give him his due not all dictionaries give word definitions 

2) it also depends on your opponant for example- you favour bishops higher and as such dont notice the movements of knights as well and vice versa for other people

3)knights are extremely useful throughout play but it is infinately more difficult to put ur opponant in check wid 2 knights in comparison to 2 bishops 

Nothing like jumping in to a good conversation for a good posting.

"1)everone else is right about you spelling which wrong. tho to give him his due not all dictionaries give word definitions "

If it doesn't give definitions then it is not a dictionary.

Bishop

Pro-Can strike from long range.  When centered it attacks many squares,

Con-Attacks squares of only one color.  Can be blocked.

Knight

Pro-Able to jump over other pieces to attack.  Can attack both colors.  Can simultaneously attack many pieces.

Con-"Slower" than the bishop.  Takes longer to get across the board.  Limited range. 

 

I don't thin k of it in terms of range but in terms of board coverage.  On a empty board a bishop can reach 32 squares in two moves from any position.  A knight can cover 28 when in the centre and lot less when on the outside of the board a lot less on the outside of the board.  So at the end game the bishop is the more powerful piece and this is increased even more so if the knight is on the rim.   For me people say knights lose their strength towards the end of the game, but I think that's not the case.  To me the knights stay at the value all the game.  It's just that the bishop gets better as pieces are exchange off. 

 

But of course we don't play on empty boards in a real game the value of both bishop and knight, and any piece for that matter is constantly fluctuating dependent upon the position.

I agree. Since chess is such a dynamic game, we cannot make a generalization as to which of the two minor pieces is better.

I prefer knights especially in the early game when the board is not open.  I also like the ability to fork and capture.  It is also cool for discovered attacks.  It has the ability as it attacks the king that the king has to move, because you can not interpose a piece.

Bishops are better in the endgame.  They have the ability to cover many squares.  They have the disadvantage of only being able to attack on their color, so it is important to have both bishops, or a bishop and a knight.

Bishops are better in the endgame.

 

These are the statistics for bishop vs knight endgames:  

37,356 - Drawn

37,296 - Won by the Knight

33,328 - Won by the bishop

Even in the endgame, it all depends on the position.

 

it is important to have both bishops

 

Now that is usually a significant advantage.

Heh, knights are great pawn stoppers in the endgame.  Probably why there is so many draws.  But I'm suprised that it earned so many wins. 

Here's an interesting endgame. White was the dreaded bishop pair. Black has doubled pawns and a knight on the rim. Guess who wins?

 

I agree with mxdplay4: open position, bishops are better; closed position, knights are better.  On average (combining all factors), the bishop is better by a fraction. I also agree with ericmittens that "which" is the correct word.