knight or bishop

what u beleive is knight more powerful or bishop?, express with reasons.

at the beginning of the game, the knight is generally stronger, as it can hop around pieces easily and freely s if on an open board. The bishop at the beginning is generally weak, as it it restricted by pawns, and has little room to move.

 

Towards the end of the game, the knight looses its power. It threatens less squares (as there are less possible threats) and has little chance of smothered checkmate. The bishop however increases power, because more of the squares are free, and ready for the bishop to move to.

 

Rememer that a pair of bishops are worth alot more then a bishop and a knight. In some books bishops and knights are marked as 3 points, and in others 3.25 and 3.5.  Sometimes however you must look at  your surroundings and look at what is more useful. Maybe your bishop is at where it started, whilst your knight occupys the centre, in these situations positition is normally better then power.

Again?

Started reading those chapters two days ago Gonnosuke, good book :)

 

Edit: This is word-for-word from Silman's Reassess Your Chess which has a huge section on minor pieces in the middle game.

bigshop:3 pawn

knight:2.5pawn

Thanks Gonnosuke for a clearly-written, and very helpful explanation.

I agree with what others said, I love the knights in the open and middle game, but as the middle game approaches the end game, my favor tends to shift to bishops. 

 

it all depends on the game really, I've played some where my bishops are very strong early on 

God2, both pieces are worth 3.  2 knights are better than a rook, as are a knight and a bishop.  trading a bishop for a knight is an equal trade, but before you make it you should consider if making that trade is useful.  eg, is it a part of your plan, was the bishop powerful, important, or defending something else you want to exchange etc.  Having 2 bishops is usually a positional advantage so you shouldnt go out of your way to give this up unless you get at least something for it.  This could be something as simple as a freer game, or better piece placement.  Think of pawns.  A pawn is always worth one pawn.  If you make a pawn weak, you havent won material, the pawn is still worth 1.  You have just gained a positional advantage that you might be able to convert to material later on (for example).  You would then avoid needlessly giving up this positional advantage say for a strong pawn of yours because, while both pawns are worth 1, you are giving up a positional edge. 

Knights are better, for me. They have high surprise, their jumping and that "L" movement

it's hard to predict them.

> bigshop:3 pawn knight:2.5pawn

> Bishops are 3.5pts and Knights are 3 points.

 

Lary Kaufman did extensive analysis on their valuations and determined both bishops and knights are worth the same... 3.25 pawns. It's the position and the players who make the minor pieces worth more or less.  Note, the bishop pair is worth an extra 0.5 pawns.

While I enjoy the distance from which a Bishop can attack, I would prefer to have a Knight in most situations.  And as others have said previously, a piece's worth is dependent upon the situation and the player.

likesforests wrote:

> bigshop:3 pawn knight:2.5pawn

> Bishops are 3.5pts and Knights are 3 points.

 

Lary Kaufman did extensive analysis on their valuations and determined both bishops and knights are worth the same... 3.25 pawns. It's the position and the players who make the minor pieces worth more or less.  Note, the bishop pair is worth an extra 0.5 pawns.

---

Larry Kaufman talked a bit about his research on material imbalances on the Rybka forum before (rybkaforum.net), and some of the easier to understand parameters that affect this imbalance are things such as the number of pawns on the board, the number of pieces etc. 

so asadbunty, the general answer to your question is that neither of these pieces is better than the other, without extra knowledge of the position, you never know.