bishop
Is a bishop worth more than a knight?
Sort:
or a horse
At our level, nothing makes sense
Jun 16, 2025
0
#6
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?
Jun 16, 2025
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.
Jun 16, 2025
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.
Jun 16, 2025
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."
Jun 16, 2025
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.
Jun 16, 2025
0
#15
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 :-)
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.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tI3lyBE5diU.
This video shows, another reason why a knight is better than a bishop is because with a knight you can checkmate, with just one knight.
NEHORAI-1 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tI3lyBE5diU.
This video shows, another reason why a knight is better than a bishop is because with a knight you can checkmate, with just one knight.
As we all know we can checkmate with just one bishop also.
The way it was explained to me is that a bishop is like a rifle and a knight is like a sword. Which one is worth more? Ask the person on the receiving end.
In this question, I address the logic behind the equivalence of tools, and I hope you will provide as many answers as possible.