a bishop's worth

Should a bishop be worth 4 points??

That would imply that the bishop is universally better than the knight which is not the case. A queen and a knight are better than a queen and a bishop in most circumstances, as the bishop merely mimics half of the queen's attack while the knight it unique. Capablanca also says in Chess Fundamentals that two rooks are better than a knight and two bishops but inferior to two knights and one bishop.

Sometimes a bishop is worth more than the knight. Sometimes not. If you put a value of 4 on the bishop as a matter of course you will lose games, as you would then, presumably, be inclined to swap knight for bishop almost every time the opportunity presented itself, which is clearly wrong.

You can find thousands of examples in databases (i.e. from real games) of positions where a bishop would have been useless but a knight was worth it's weight in gold.

thanks KickAssandGiggle

a bishop's worth in comparison to a knight depends on position for sure. however, if i have an opponent who favors one or the other i feel that it is good strategy to trade their favorite pieces off (same goes for the queen).

If I'm in a game where I forsee the centre being opened up, I'll trade off my knight(s). If the pawns are locked in and I'm not getting anywhere fast, I'll trade off my bishop(s). I prefer knights in the middlegame, and bishops in the endgame by a long shot - knights on an open board have very little mobility in comparison to bishops.

I used to have a knight valued at slightly above 3, but now I'm less inclined to fall for knight forks etc, it's shifted back to being equal with a bishop.

NO! bishops are definately not worth more than a knight!

But Mebeme, we just leaned that it is half the worth queen or so.  And some say queens are worth 9 points. 

Can't we just finish with these threads anyway? >_> the truth is the value depends on the posistion. Debating their value on 'average' is useless, because you're going to reach a posistion in every game, and there, averages have no use whatsoever in making a decision on what to exchange.

Bishop and knight are equal in general chess, and in REAL chess it depends on the position.

tbuk wrote:

Can't we just finish with these threads anyway? >_> the truth is the value depends on the posistion. Debating their value on 'average' is useless, because you're going to reach a posistion in every game, and there, averages have no use whatsoever in making a decision on what to exchange.

I don't agree with this.  The position is priority in making the decision only if the position has a certain outcome that the player is aware of.  In many cases people find themselves in positions and are not sure what to play, and in such situations it's good to know of averages and strategies that tradtionally work.

For instance, it's good to know that the queen is far more valuable than any other piece (except the king), so in nearly ALL cases exchanging this for a knight will result in defeat.  Of course the position will also express this if you are an experienced player, but if you are a beginner then it may not be so obvious, and so the fundamental knowledge of piece value as an average is very important.

I personally suggest the knight and the bishop value are both between 3 and 4 and fluctuate between these two figures depending on position.  In some positions their value is significantly higher or lower but that is irrelevant in general strategy.

Here the best way to remember it...knights are worth more if there are more than 12 pawns.  If less, Bishops are better.  If exactly 12, they are even.

no grensley, its the position.

Mebeme that is the worst tactical puzzle to illustrate the power of the Knight. EVER! Possibly you were going for something a little more like this:

That is Philidor's legacy. Honestly speaking, the difference between the knight and bishop can be summed up as such:

With rooks, use bishops.

With open positions, use bishops.

With a queen, use knights.

with a closed position, use knights.

I'm attaching a game to demonstrate the power of the queen and two knights.

Total ownage... the combination wouldn't have been possible with a bishop as the area was so blocked up. Besides, the queen could have just taken the bishop if it had been doing a three way fork.

Ok rich

You probably also want to consider whether you or your opponent would have the bishop pair when contemplating a trade.

Another strong point by Duffer1965; but it poses another answer--that is, it is easier to mate with the bishop pair.

You can mate with 2 bishops. However, practically, you cannot win with 2 knights.

I've noticed, even in closed positions, bishops are quite useful.

A bishop can trap a knight, however, a knigh can't really trap a bishop.

I found bishop very handy in end games, even if they are somewhat closed!

No, a bishop should not be worth four points...  three points for B or N is remarkably accurate as a valuation in general, -- of course that valuation can change, favoring either piece, depending on the position.

The imbalance between B and N is probably Jeremy Silman's favorite topic and anyone interested in B vs N value would be very well served by reading "Reassess your Chess" on the topic. How to make your N worth more than his B or vice versa -- that's chess! 

A key point is that N's need advanced support posts to acheive their maximum value... A N securely posted up in your opponent's 6th rank and near his king is a _very_ different piece from a loose N stuck in a back corner somewhere far from the action.

P.S. Brandon's diagram is mate in 2 of course.

But Theodred, when a bishop and a knight are four squares apart, they seem to check each other