is the bishop really a little stronger then the knight？

As is the very mystery and intrique that chess often presents...there will be exceptions. In the above, neither piece is truly stronger as this is a drawn endgame (to my eyes, perhaps there is a series of 20+ moves that I just don't see).

As has been stated many times:

"A Knight is strong when the position is closed. Weaker when the position is open."

"A Bishop is weak when the position is closed. Stronger when the position is open."

This is due to the mobility and nature of the two pieces. Of course, this is relative in that depending on the position either piece can strike an instant advantage. Therefore, there is no real answer, only the one that you find in your or any other games.

With a Bishop on f5 1. Ba2 Bxc2 2. Bb2 Bxb3 is not stalemate.

Without the bishop on b1, the knight is better then the Bishop, not to mention a queen, because otherwise the game is a stalemate.

I am not sure I understand the point that you are trying to make in this diagram. If the b1 Bishop was a knight. 1. Nxc3 bxc3 2. b4 Nd4 3. Kh7 Nxc2 4. b5 Nd4 and Black clearly wins faster. So White's Bishop is better then a knight, Black's Knight is worse then a Bishop, but only because White's Bishop is a traitor that stops an immediate stalemate, and Black's position is better then White's. He brings his king to d2 attacks c2 with his knight a wins. i.e. 1 Kh7 Kf6 2. Bh2 Nd4 3. Bc1 when Black is clearly winning. Phylar I don't know why you think this is a draw. I also can't think of a good reason why white would play Ba2 and follow it up with b3 when he has a pawn on c2.

Depends on the situation. Generally, yes.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Than_vs_Then

Are there any good players who have said the bishop is always better than a knight?

Think this is the most I've immobilised an enemy bishop (move 33, although whole game annotated):

they say the strategist favors the bishop and the tactician prefers the knight.

i dont know if its true but thats what i heard

im not 100 percent sure and i might confuse it with something else i heard, but i think chigorin said: that the knight is stronger...

but maybe im just confusing it with chigorin liked to play with knights.

im getting old my memory fails me.

Yes in that position the knight is obviously much stronger than the bishop, so I certainly agree with aggressivesociopath (and with yourself since you posted a position as an example of a strong knight versus a very weak bishop). The bishop is useless while the black king and knight can just walk down and eat the white pawns and then advance his own pawns and there is nothing white can do about it. Below is an example, I can't find any white defense.

In general: The bishop can go from one end of the board to the other end in one move, while the knight needs many moves. That is why the bishop is strong in open positions and in end games where there are pawns on both sides. The knight is strong in closed positions and in end games where there are pawns only on one side of the board. But you always need to evaluate the actual position of course.

Anyway, you can create positions where any piece is stronger no matter the normal value, even a pawn can be stronger than a queen.

White has other problems, his king is in the far conner cut off by Black's King. The OP's position has little to no relevence in the knight versues bishop debate.

are two knights better than a queen? i think so!

white just loses (even when having the move AND an extra pawn!) in this completely not contrived example. QED

lol @ love you so much

the point is that all chess "principles" are relative and the real value of the pieces depends on the whole picture.

If we are to believe GM Kauffman's analysis (which is about the only interesting thing that the B vs N threads dug out for me), the bishop is statistically better, but that is exclusively due to the pair of bishop that he estimates to be worth around 0.5 points.

But of course, the answer depends a lot on the position. It's like saying "city XXX is more windy than city YYY" - wind is a very random phenomenon and although city XXX is more windy, it might be true only 51% of the time.

How about this one? "The bishop is always stronger that the knight. Except for the exceptions."

My experience has been that beginner players grasp the theory of how to use a bishop to their advantage more quickly than how to use a knight. And because they don't understand how to use a knight, they also often miss possible attacks their opponent has with her/his knight. So against a beginner, I'd say my knights are stronger and s/he relies more on his/her bishops than knights.

But I think after a beginner begins to understand the theory of how a knight is useful, and understands how to defend against knight attacks as well as how to attack with a knight, then the bishop/knight advantage depends entirely on the position.

Good thought but you're thinking about a pieces strength in the wrong way. Its not necessarily how much "theory" you know about how to make a piece useful, whatever that means - a pieces strength is simply all about the number of squares it can control. Thus, bishops are typically stronger in open games (less pawns and more open lanes and diagonals) and knights are typically stonger in closed games.  (more locked pawns that can provide useful perches - perhaps even after a bishop sacrifice!)

I wish I had someone tell me this 4 years ago, it would have saved me a lot of bad trades.

Also: than*