Which piece is more valuable?

Which of these 2 pieces are more valuable? Knight or Bishop?

If you want to see the difference: put the bishop on the chessboard and then the knight. Count how many moves they can make. Even in the center of the board, the knight has a maximum of 8 moves. The bishop on g2 already has 9 moves, the bishop on d4 has 13 moves. Also see how local the knight is versus the bishop. The bishop on d4 influences all the board, the knight doesn't reach that far. The one advantage the knight has over a single bishop is that the knight can get to squares of both color, the bishop can't do that. That's why the bishop pair is so important to strong players, cause then you can still influence squares of both colors. These differences combined make the bishop stronger in most positions, as in almost all positions there is stuff all over the board and the position will open up at some point because of trades. But in endgames where everything is on one side of the board, the knight is better. And if the bishop only looks at its own pawns and not all over the board (a bad bishop), it can also be better to have a knight. But the moment the position opens up, the bishop is likely to be the better piece again.

Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a respected  chess coach and chess YouTuber based in California: 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP5SPSG_sWSYPjqJYMNwL_Q

It depends on the position.  If the position is closed (lots of pieces on the board, then generally, the knight is better than the bishop. Knights can jump over pieces.  If the position is open, then the bishop is better. 

I hope that this helps. 

So I just started and wanted to know what the best opening is you do not have to describe just tell me and I'll look it up

I personally prefer bishops and here's why...

Knights have great use in the early game as they're very easy to develop and maneuver, whereas bishops can be a bit trickier. However, Bishops can have absurd board vision; they can patrol squares on the opposite side of the board if they are positioned correctly. Bishops can also be used well in the opening

Knights are amazing at forking pieces, though, and can be a utile piece throughout the game. They lack in endgames, however, due to their limited range and mobility, and a bishop can tend to be a lot better. There is a saying, though, that in an endgame, "if there's a knight, there's a chance."

Also, I would prefer having two bishops to having one bishop and one knight or two knights - the two bishops cannot connect like knights but they are extremely utile because they can cover all of the squares on the board.

All in all, I prefer bishops ever so slightly, but both pieces have their strengths and different grandmasters will prefer one or the other.

I believe alpha zero found the bishop to be better on average by about 0.5 points of material, but it depends on the position 

No questions about the bishop pair, that's definitely better than 2 knights, however, two knights jumping and horsing around in your camp is tough to calculate so in blitz or rapid when time is running low a knight is definitely trickier than bishop

As far as endgames, when there's play on both sides yes bishops are usually better... if all the pawns are on the same side then knight is just as good if not better, since they are not color restricted.

But yes as a general rule of thumb bishops should have a slight advantage because of its long range and because closed positions can open but open positions don't close

But as noted by pretty much everyone, it depends on the position... 

bishop

i think they both are same nights are very tricky so are bishops

Bishop > Knight
See table 6
B = 3.33 P
N = 3.05 P

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf 

technically bishops are better overall but knights hold a value no other piece can replace.  and in most situations, whether knights or bishops are better is relative to the position

To be honest, I worry about the amount of people that are saying that it depends on the position, because it makes it feel very arbitrary. To me, it leaves too much room for improving players to say: 'well, in this position, I though the knight was better. Look how active it is!' That's not the way the bishop versus knight situation works. Yes, there are exceptions when a knight is stronger, for example when it has a very advanced outpost or when the position is completely blocked, but in almost all other cases the bishop is better and it doesn't depend on the position all that much. Even in a closed position, I'm almost never allowing a trade of their knight for my bishop. My bishop is my savings account. It's something for later in the game. So, really, the wording should be much more that bishops are better in general, but that there are exceptions that are worth studying, most notably games with a strong outpost for the knight and good knight versus bad bishop endgames.

In endgames, I would say Bishop as its easier to checkmate if you have a bishop. In places where king and rook or queen are close by, knights are better at making pins =)

I considere knights and Bishops pieces for barter.
They are the first I lost or take, usually.

As far I know a knight worths 3 points and a bishop also 3 points

Value for Pieces:
queen - 9 points
rook - 5 points
bishop - 3 points
knight - 3 points
pawn - 1 point

King - value for the the king  is not defined, because it can't be taken.

The bishop

Bishops tend to be useful in more situations or positions than the knight. But don't get me wrong, the knight does and will always have its moments of glory.