bishop
Is a bishop worth more than a knight?
Sort:
or a horse
At our level, nothing makes sense
2 bishops are generally worth slightly more than 2 knights, especially in the endgame.
You know how you can do the ladder checkmate with 2 rooks -- you can do something similar with 2 bishops, just diagonally.
NEHORAI-1 wrote:
In this question, I address the logic behind the equivalence of tools
The what?
1 day ago
0
#8
Bishops tend to be more valuable in positions with open center in which they can act on both flanks simultaneously. Knights tend to be more valuable in blocked positions in which scope of the bishops is limited by pawns of both sides.
1 day ago
0
#9
At my level in the end game I find one knight is better than 1 bishop because the knight has access to all squares while the bishop only has access to 32. If my opponent has 1 bishop and pawns only in the endgame I park all my pieces on squares opposite in color to my opponent’s bishop. They are all totally safe then. If my opponent has a knight instead of a bishop NONE of my pieces are safe.
Bishop 3.5 Knight 2.5.
1 day ago
0
#11
Point wise, no. Positionally depends on the pawn structure. The knight pair is good in openings, but the endgame bishop pair is brutal. Also take into account knight forks
It reminds me one fun story
In 1945 there was a chess match (Wiki) where a chess master Anthony Santasiere lost 2 out of 2 games to a grandmaster David Bronstein. After the match Santasiere sent a message to Bronstein like "Congratulations! In both games you demonstrated the advantage of two bishops over two knights". Bronstein replied like "Next time I will try to demonstrate the advantage of two knights over two bishops."
1 day ago
0
#14
IM Larry Kaufman wrote an article entitled "The Evaluation of Material Imbalances" that is probably the most systematic and scientific attempt to address this issue.
Long story short, Kaufman used database analysis and determined that both knight and bishop are equal. The two bishops, however, are worth a half pawn bonus.
Great article, IMO.
Of course any material imbalance's value is entirely context dependent on the specific position.
Lent_Barsen wrote:
IM Larry Kaufman wrote an article entitled "The Evaluation of Material Imbalances" that is probably the most systematic and scientific attempt to address this issue.
Here it is...
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-evaluation-of-material-imbalances-by-im-larry-kaufman
Long read... I'll take it piece by piece when I have a few minutes here and there :-)
1 day ago
0
#17
In a lot of positions, you will see that there are unique attributes and imbalances with minor pieces. One of the more common is the idea of a good Knight versus bad Bishop ending, which reflects the scope of the individual pieces. From a strategic perspective, Black would love to get into a minor piece endings since with Rooks and Queens gone, there is some chance for play without a lot of tactics. If the board is open or there are pawns on both wings then having Bishops makes sense since you can cover more ground with them. If the board position is closed or you have locked pawns, you might favor the Knights more since they can alternate squares of color. Granted these are generalizations but the idea can get real tricky as well. Are your pawns on the same or opposite color of your Bishop? Are the pawns being blockaded in some way? Where are the Kings positioned? Is the Bishop in front of or behind the pawn chain? Each position will have its own unique qualities and thus needs to be assessed in its own manner. What I typically view about the pieces is in the opening the Knight is a bit more valuable since it can get into the action without a pawn move to prep it. As the game goes on in an open board, I like the Bishop but in a closed board the Knight. It really all depends on what the position looks like as to what might be better
To be honest a single bishop better than knight I will evaluate the bishop at 3.15
Thordelvalle wrote:
Bishop 3.5 Knight 2.5.
Ridiculous overstatement.
Most strong players prefer the bishop over the knight, and some of them even go as far as to give different values to them. But nobody in their right mind thinks that the difference is a whole point. The suggestions I saw were like knight 3.0 and bishop 3.25.
If you start trading knight for bishop at the cost of losing a pawn, you will get into lost positions lightning fast.
magipi wrote:
Thordelvalle wrote:
Bishop 3.5 Knight 2.5.
Ridiculous overstatement.
Most strong players prefer the bishop over the knight, and some of them even go as far as to give different values to them. But nobody in their right mind thinks that the difference is a whole point. The suggestions I saw were like knight 3.0 and bishop 3.25.
If you start trading knight for bishop at the cost of losing a pawn, you will get into lost positions lightning fast.
I was going to say knight 3.014382 and bishop 3.094976.
The difference being where f pawn is on move 48.
In this question, I address the logic behind the equivalence of tools, and I hope you will provide as many answers as possible.