All Pieces Can be of Equal Value

In previous posts I have argued for the relative superiority of the Bishop over the Knight merely for rhetorical purposes. In reality I am convinced the relative value of the pieces can only be determined by the evolution of the position during the game. Every game being unique the exigencies of a particular position determine the relative value of the pieces in reality. One position may evolve so that a well placed Knight holds everything together over a consortium of enemy pieces. Especially if the said Knight is on a square of opposite color of the enemy Bishop so that the Bishop , on its own, can do nothing to dislodge that Knight. Or there may evolve a situation where a passed pawn becomes the entire focus of a player's attack & even Rooks & the almighty Queen must be sacrificed to save the game. In summary, it is a sign of inexperience & naivete to abide by strict valuations of the pieces or to insist on personal preferences for one minor piece over another. Experience will surely refute such personal & misguided valuations. Far better to train your mind to look as accurately & deeply into the position as possible rather than to operate by rules of thumb that may seem helpful but in reality are based on illusions. The grandeur, magnificence, incorruptability, fascination & vast variety of Chess is based on this truth: that each individual position will determine the real value of a piece.  It all depends on what's happening on the board at the moment more so than the simplistic Knights are 3 points, Bishops are 3 points, etc. type views ordinarily used. What's your opinion Babooshka? 

Of course you are right. Sometimes a piece can be useless and a pawn can be the game winner.