Knights or Bishops
Which is the better piece to have, Knights or Bishops?
In the opening a Knight is better because it is easier to get out with the least amount of move. You can control the center, not just a diagonal. I have never heard of a "Bad Knight" but as the saying goes "a knight on the Rim is Grim."
A Knight is also useful in the opening if your opponent lets you get them in a fork with the King and Rook or Rook and Queen. But... (Score 1 for Knight)
A Bishop is better partly you can skewer or pin a piece with them and fork too. You cannot, as far as I know, skewer or pin with a Knight. The Bishop is used in the shortest mates that we know but once again you have to have an opponent 'take the bait." (Score 1 for Bishop)
Both pieces are useful in the middle game and can cause havoc to your opponent. There are many times when a Bishop comes along the diagonal from the other side of the board and takes a piece because the opponent forget it was back there. But a well placed Knight can dominate the center and also protect the King. (Score 1 for both)
The Knight is a pain too sometimes in the opening. Getting pinned against the King or Queen by the Bishop (Score 1 for Bishop)
In general I will trade a knight for a bishop almost every time but that depends on the position.
But one last thing that clinches it in favor of the Bishop for me is what Capablanca says in his book Chess Fundamentals "two knights alone cannot force Mate.
So I give the score to the Bishop or in France "The Fool"
That said I present the problem below.
Now the question is, are there any conditions that occur with two knights that White can win?
For those of you who say... "But this is not forced the King could move to b8 instead of playing h4." I will put that variation here.
So even if you play with the King jumping back a forth, as if the pawn is not there, you get the above. The point to be taken is that you must have a pawn in the two knights ending to avoid a stalemate.
Two knights is always a draw. Don't believe me try it out.