It depends on what they are made of, but usually they are the same. For a typical Staunton wood piece they are usually about 3.00 each
But wholesale chess has the knight valued more at .79 versus .49 for the bishop.
It depends on what they are made of, but usually they are the same. For a typical Staunton wood piece they are usually about 3.00 each
But wholesale chess has the knight valued more at .79 versus .49 for the bishop.
Knights for sure the trickiest to work out, if I'm winning il keep the bishop if losing keep the knights especially in bullet
If I were better, my best guess is that I'd much prefer a Bishop... and I just read that Fischer thought a Bishop was worth more like 3.5 to a Knight's 3.0 (because it can control more squares). In my own games, I slightly prefer a Bishop just because it's easier to see what squares it contols. But I prefer that my opponent lose a Knight... for exactly the same reason: it's easier to see what squares their Bishops control.

it depends on the position. if it's an open position, bishops. if closed, then knights. also the part of the game (middlegame, opening, endgame) plays a part in determining the value of a bishop versus a knight.
If I were better, my best guess is that I'd much prefer a Bishop... and I just read that Fischer thought a Bishop was worth more like 3.5 to a Knight's 3.0 (because it can control more squares). In my own games, I slightly prefer a Bishop just because it's easier to see what squares it contols. But I prefer that my opponent lose a Knight... for exactly the same reason: it's easier to see what squares their Bishops control.
The knight can control exactly twice as many squares as a bishop. But the bishop can potentially control more squares at once.
saying bishops are better than knights is useless advice
for people rated 0-1000 its completely worthless since this rating group is so bad at seeing knight forks, you can make the argument the knight is superior to the bishop at that rating range
for people rated 1000-2000 you are beginning to learn when positions favor one over the other so to teach a person bishops are better than knight only retards this learning process. They will continue to overvaluate bishops because of this creed for longer than they should.
for people rated 2000+ you are already adept at figuring out when one is superior to another so this general advice is simply useless.
so why keep insisting on this useless dogma?
i think you got a few things mixed up there
like what exactly?
Knight 2.5 Bishop 3.5.
This is not the first place where you write this nonsense. These numbers are wildly off. Learn the real value of pieces, that might help you improve from the rating of 100.
The most commonly used one is bishop = knight = 3.
I humbly offer its all about what positions the game is in, I would offer a slight whiskery slivery morsel of an advantage to the bishop, but its as tight as a mouses ear esp at my level.

In this question, I address the logic behind the equivalence of tools, and I hope you will provide as many answers as possible.
As with most things in chess then answer is...Depends.
It depends not on which square the knight or bishop is but on pawn structure. The recent blitz game Carlsen vs Gukesh was another huge lesson for me. Gukesh´s bishop seemed to be good but Carlseńs knight was targeting black weak pawns and white won eventually. I highly recommend to everybody to watch Hikarus recap.
The whole "a bishop is worth more than a knight!" is common advice, and most players have thought this way at one point in their learning.
But once you become a more experienced player, you'll realize that a piece's worth depends on the position. Sometimes the bishop is more important. Sometimes you'd rather have the knight.
Think less about piece values and focus more on thinking ahead, and trying to figure out what the position calls for ...
Knight 2.5 Bishop 3.5.