x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Bishop or Knight?

  • #41
    Nordlandia wrote:

    Slightly offtopic: do you prefer Q+N or Q+B endgames?

    Capablanca favoured Q+N duo. 

    Queens and knights combined are basically doomsday. Yeah, I agree

  • #42

    Supposedly, according to Garry Kasparov, a bishop is worth 3.15 whereas a Knight is worth 3...

    Also, Fisher said that a bishop was worth 3.25 verses 3 for a Knight...

  • #43

    null

    Here's the example of the game.  I played white.  My opponent's bishop was better than my knight.  

  • #44

    Bishop are definitely usually better. Here's an example (from a daily chess game I'm playing) of how bishops can really restrict a knight's movement (I played Bc5):

    null

  • #45

    Definitely usually

  • #46

    happy.png

  • #47

    And an example in favour of knights.

     

    White to move (maybe thiis illustration becomes much clearer if the Black king starts out along the h-file). Some of the Black pawns (minimally the b5 Black pawn) will be erased off the board.

  • #48
    eric0022 wrote:

    And an example in favour of knights.

     

    Some of the Black pawns will be erased off the board.

    As I said earlier, (at least I think I did, maybe not), knights are favored in closed positions, and bishops are favored in open positions. Since endgames are usually open, bishops are usually better in the endgame.

  • #49
    chadnilsen wrote:
    eric0022 wrote:

    And an example in favour of knights.

     

    Some of the Black pawns will be erased off the board.

    As I said earlier, (at least I think I did, maybe not), knights are favored in closed positions, and bishops are favored in open positions. Since endgames are usually open, bishops are usually better in the endgame.

     

    Hmmm...now that you mention it, many endgames do retain the characteristics of open ones.

  • #50
    lfPatriotGames wrote:
    ThrillerFan wrote:
    lfPatriotGames wrote:

    Everyone always says it depends on the position. And sometimes that is probably true. But I think it depends on the player, not the position. A great position with a bishop will easily be defeated by a poor position with a knight if the person with the bishop doesn't know what to do.

     

    WRONG!  You can't tell me the position is great for White because player X is playing White and then say the same position is bad for White because player Y sucks at Bishop endings.

     

    If you suck at Bishop endings, you suck at chess!  PERIOD!

     

    You do not need to know every opening.  If you don't know the Najdorf, and you don't play 1.e4 as White or Sicilian as Black, there is no reason to know it.

     

    However, you need to know all endings.  Does not matter if you play the French, Dragon, or Alekhine against 1.e4.  You still have to know what to do when your game reaches a rook ending!  At that point, who the f*ck cares whether you got there via Latvian Gambit or Colle System?

    Yes I can say that because I've seen it. Sometimes someone will have a good position, and not know how to win it. Sometimes the person with the worse position wins, simply because they know more about winning with certain peices and positions.

     

    You are a complete idiot if you truly believe the garbage you just wrote!  The result of the game has zero bearing on which piece is better for the given position.  You may have a good knight and I may have a bad bishop, with all other factors equal.  Under normal circumstances, one of two results will happen.  You, with the Knight, will win, or it will be a draw.  Now, that doesn't prevent the possibility that you simply suck and I win!  That still has ZERO bearing on the fact that the Knight was better in the given position, and then the answer to the OP's question for that particular game is that I would rather have the Knight.  In another game, completely different, I might prefer the Bishop!

     

    But just because one piece ends up winning the game doesn't make that the better piece in the endgame!  The result of a game means nothing!  Absolutely nothing!  Otherwise, if you used results for everything, the Najdorf Sicilian will be busted today because someone with Black will lose in a Nadjorf Sicilian somewhere in the world!  The same would be said about the French Defense, Petroff Defense, or any other defense!  Individual results don't dictate the superiority of one minor piece over the other!

  • #51

    I have to agree with TheThrillerFan.  His USCF rating is 2110 and his Daily Chess rating is 1950.  He knows what he's talking about.  

  • #52
  • #53

    Generally, I prefer a B over a N in a ending involving pawn on both sides of the board.  However, I agree with ThrillerFan that it all depends on the position.  I had this game a while ago where I gave up the B for a knight to enter a Knight vs B ending while my knight (and extra pawn) prevails.  In the end it is the Knight that dominates the B and wins.  However, the win was difficult and it took some time for me to figure out the correct plan to win.

    https://www.chess.com/daily/game/99585968

     

  • #54

    Knight seems better than bishop in endgame as it can attack both pawns on light and dark squares. However, the advantage of bishop is that they can cover many squares at a time.

  • #55

    A general rule of thumb is knights are preferred if all the pawns are on the same side of the board. If there are pawns on both sides bishops tend to work out better. Again though like many have already said it depends on the position. So you need to try and create a position that favors you. If you have a knight and your opponent has the bishop and there are pawns on both sides of the board you might want to try and trade one side of pawns off to favor your knight. Bishops and knights are for the most part considered equal. You have to create a position that makes one of them superior to the other. Good luck.

  • #56

    iceman073, 

    as about everyone has stated, it depends on the position (as pretty much everything in chess). A Bishop potentially can control more squares than a Knight can. However, the biggest drawback of a Bishop is always it being limited to half of the board (whichever color squares they begin on) while Knights "swap" color every move therefore allowing it to reach any square. Of course, a Bishop pair can control any square, and I would favor that over a Knight pair (computers value possession of the Bishop pair about 1/2 a pawn more than a pair of Knights).

    Also, you wanted to know of a website for endgame practice...

    "Nalimov tables" (hopefully spelled correctly) is a great free resource for this type of practice, even with the 8-piece limit. 

Top

Online Now