In chess it is such an established rule that Bs are better than Ns that the rule has a name:
The Minor Exchange
knights>bishops?!
Sort:
And there are many exceptions to that rule. Here is one:
If you get to an end game or middle game queen and knight are usually far better than queen and bishop.
Of course the answer is "it depends on the position". Many of my best games are games where the knight defeats the bishop.
Oct 23, 2013
0
#25
TBentley wrote:
SaharanKnight wrote:
Well, anyone will favor knights over bishops, maybe 3-1, for making moves 2 and 3 in the opening, Chess 960 included. There is a theoretical reason for that, a simple reason and a longer reasoning. So why? This is the third or fourth time that I have brought up this question on chess.com, but nobody has given even the simple reason up until now. Come on!!
It is often easier to figure out early on where your knights should go than where your bishops should go. This may not always be the case in Chess 960, but is likely to be true more often than not. I guess this is the theoretical reason?
For the simple reason: maybe the bishop is still blocked in on move 2 or 3?
Exactly. The simple reason is that generally one cannot determine as early where the bishop should go. With the knights, it is a bit more straightforward, and that gets us into the longer reason having to do with how the knights and bishops move, how many squares they can control in a forward position, etc.
The question of when and how to move the bishop is very important in Chess 960 where one has to develop one's opening. I remember having gotten the edge after just a few moves in a 960 opening just because my opponent moved his bishop too early -- it was a good bishop move but just too early. I won that one fairly quickly.
returnofxpchesser wrote:
Ive noticed in the number of games that knights must be somewhat greater than bishops, since this randomized game is 90 percent of the time closed. Do any of you agree, its like you lose tempos by shuffling your bishops around.
I've noticed queens tend to get exchanged earlier than rooks about 90% of the time.
That must be because rooks are better than queens.
Now, for some serious take about the subject : http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
(tldr : bishops are better but only because of the pair of bishops)
Oct 23, 2013
0
#27
Irontiger wrote:
I've noticed queens tend to get exchanged earlier than rooks about 90% of the time.
That must be because rooks are better than queens.
You've given me reason not to untrack. Thanks.
What about if someone is down the exchange in an endgame with the same number of pawns on the same side of the board, which is it better to have: a knight or a bishop? I was thinking knight, anyone have any input?
Oct 23, 2013
0
#29
Rockazb wrote:
What about if someone is down the exchange in an endgame with the same number of pawns on the same side of the board, which is it better to have: a knight or a bishop? I was thinking knight, anyone have any input?
Usually a knight. That's one of those situations when a knight can equal a rook.
Put pawns on both sides and the bishop dominates the knight, as in this endgame: http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=72927302
Oct 23, 2013
0
#30
Yea thats true in some form but i did see a queen sac once for better position. Levion vs nakamura, levion just saqed his queen and nakamura didnt know what to do from there on. Thats crazy how things like that happen in 960 play.ooooooh the possibilities.
Irontiger wrote:
returnofxpchesser wrote:
Ive noticed in the number of games that knights must be somewhat greater than bishops, since this randomized game is 90 percent of the time closed. Do any of you agree, its like you lose tempos by shuffling your bishops around.
I've noticed queens tend to get exchanged earlier than rooks about 90% of the time.
That must be because rooks are better than queens.
Now, for some serious take about the subject : http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
(tldr : bishops are better but only because of the pair of bishops)
Ns unlike every other piece cannot lose a tempo. Example K+2Ns cannot checkmate a lone K because they cannot lose a tempo. Whereas K+2Bs can checkmate a lone K
I believe in endgames with still a lot of pawns on the board, and only knight vs. bishop, the knight is in many cases stronger.
Excuse me Yaroslov, 2 knights + king can checkmate a lone king. Choose any endgame book and you will see.
Oct 23, 2013
0
#34
progamer56 wrote:
Excuse me Yaroslov, 2 knights + king can checkmate a lone king. Choose any endgame book and you will see.
Not by force, according to Basic Chess Endings, Silman's Complete Endgame Manual, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, Rybka, Stockfish, ...
Oct 23, 2013
0
#35
My understanding from John Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
Bishops usually prefer stable positions with a mobile pawn structure. Knights need targets or weaknesses to attack. It looks to be better for the side with the knight(s) to break open the position to gain targets/weaknesses even if the other side has the two bishops, rather than keeping the position semi-closed but with no targets/weaknesses for a knight to work with.
Scottrf wrote:
Na, bi-shops are better than knights. FACT.
bi means two or double so a bi-shop is the same think as a double shop, probaly two shops with a partnership. for me, i think shops are a waste of time (and money 
), let alone a double shop, this is proof that bishops are stupid pieces and a waste of our time and tempo's.
horse is the man , bishop prays to a imaginary God . horse>bishop
Oct 23, 2013
0
#38
In a Catalan that I would prefer to forget, my opponent traded his bishop for my knight, then put all of his pawns on squares opposite the color of those my bishop ran on. Bit by bit he squeezed until my hopeless position collapsed and his pawns could move towards promotion?
There were pawns on both sides of the board.
Concrete analysis of the position on the board is the only certain determination of which piece is better.
Correct.
Well, anyone will favor knights over bishops, maybe 3-1, for making moves 2 and 3 in the opening, Chess 960 included. There is a theoretical reason for that, a simple reason and a longer reasoning. So why? This is the third or fourth time that I have brought up this question on chess.com, but nobody has given even the simple reason up until now. Come on!!
It is often easier to figure out early on where your knights should go than where your bishops should go. This may not always be the case in Chess 960, but is likely to be true more often than not. I guess this is the theoretical reason?
For the simple reason: maybe the bishop is still blocked in on move 2 or 3?
it is only blocked for at most 10 moves in most openings. u cant say that knights r better just because theyr useless for a few moves in the opening
I was just answering the post I quoted; I didn't say knights were better.