No. They are not. Or maybe they are but the difference is so small that it becomes irrelevant in contrast with other factors that appear in the position and require more attention
are bishops better than knights?
Sort:
interesting
LittleLadyGreatHorns wrote:
Another thing to consider is that knights can become superfluous. Ie if two knights are defending each other, they have diminishing returns. Ordinarily, a well centered knight has 8 squares it can go to, if another knight defends it, that number becomes 8. A lot of times, knights get their value because you can plant them on an important outpost and that becomes a pivot, either to get a good exchange or value out of trading that knight off, or threatening to do so (usually with other outposts to position the knight when the position changes), and you have games where a side will commit a lot of pieces to control one square, like white and d5 in the sicillian, and if the other side trades the knight that lands there, you just recapture with the other. But if that never happens, and you have two knights on one square, they can both becomes a little clumsy and even a liability. Often, in chess, there are adequate resources to defend either a square or one facet of pressure, but the attacker will be better and the way to prove that is to use space or flexibility to redirect and rally your faces faster than a cramped defender can react. Superfluous knights can hang you in positions like that, much like a french bishop or those funky d3, e4 and Ne2 systems hustlers like to use.
many people side with bishops when faced a choice like this, but your thinking is very adequeate
LittleLadyGreatHorns wrote:
SujanShadrak wrote:
LittleLadyGreatHorns wrote:
Another thing to consider is that knights can become superfluous. Ie if two knights are defending each other, they have diminishing returns. Ordinarily, a well centered knight has 8 squares it can go to, if another knight defends it, that number becomes 8. A lot of times, knights get their value because you can plant them on an important outpost and that becomes a pivot, either to get a good exchange or value out of trading that knight off, or threatening to do so (usually with other outposts to position the knight when the position changes), and you have games where a side will commit a lot of pieces to control one square, like white and d5 in the sicillian, and if the other side trades the knight that lands there, you just recapture with the other. But if that never happens, and you have two knights on one square, they can both becomes a little clumsy and even a liability. Often, in chess, there are adequate resources to defend either a square or one facet of pressure, but the attacker will be better and the way to prove that is to use space or flexibility to redirect and rally your faces faster than a cramped defender can react. Superfluous knights can hang you in positions like that, much like a french bishop or those funky d3, e4 and Ne2 systems hustlers like to use.
many people side with bishops when faced a choice like this, but your thinking is very adequeate
Your first two bishops can never get in the way of each other, and so they tend to compliment each other where knights often become clumsy. Most of the time, when one knight can be very good you want to exchange your other. Bishops, when good, are often very good together.
true
May 13, 2019
0
#26
Weirdly, I'd say at the lower end of the scale (i.e. someone like me) a knight can be more dangerous for a few simple reasons.
Knights are easier to place in useful positions for a novice. when there's not a clear strong diagonal it can be tricky finding where to put your bishop, often opening up the position in a particular way is required. I remember asking a strong player on here why I'd lost a game due to a pawn push and his advice was that I'd killed my bishops potential. I try to take that into account now but it's still tricky.
A knight on the other hand is easy, if there's a square your opponent can't kick your knight off in the enemies territory, stick it there. Everyone hates playing against a knight sitting protected on the 5th rank.
The other reason they can be good is knight forks are more often over looked at the lower end. I've got myself back into completely lost games because an opponent has blundered his rook to a knight fork, with any level of competence, no one is leaving their pieces en pris in front of a bishop.
I totally get the "bishops are better than knights" and if given the choice there are many situations I'd choose the bishop pair over a bishop and knight or two knights, but not so completely I think it's worth going out of my way to grab a bishop over a knight.
bishop pairs are fine. I will go with knights though.
why
why
why
i mean i feel like sometimes bishops have theirs pros and knights have their pros
depending on the level of hardness your playing against i guess?
OPponent_Defeated_GG wrote:
because
they
are
BETTER!!!
come on
hi
wait wait wait. but weaker players wont use bishops to thier full use as... lets say a grandmaster
LittleLadyGreatHorns wrote:
SujanShadrak wrote:
wait wait wait. but weaker players wont use bishops to thier full use as... lets say a grandmaster
Who said a grandmaster is putting their pieces to their full use either?
That doesn't matter in this discussion.
Pieces and positions have objectively true evaluations. Chess is a finite game where all pieces and the board itself is made up of fixed values, even though we as humans or even our best computers cannot understand that perfectly.
The bishops and knights we are talking about all have a certain strength, and the bishop is usually better than the knight. It's not a matter of opinion.
The difference between a grandmaster and a weaker player is their skill in playing the position, their ability to evaluate the position and it's pieces more accurately more of the time and their decision making.
The objectivity of any given position and the pieces in it doesn't change.
putting your pieces to full use will maximize your accuracy and strengthening of chess
it could
are u sure about that
LittleLadyGreatHorns wrote:
... Pieces and positions have objectively true evaluations. ... all pieces and the board itself is made up of fixed values, ... The bishops and knights we are talking about all have a certain strength, ... The objectivity of any given position and the pieces in it doesn't change.
I see no reason to believe this.
Situation
May 14, 2019
0
#39
blueemu wrote:
chesrookie930 wrote:
Depends on open or closed and the pawn pattern
Right. Bishops are better in open positions with unbalanced pawn formations. Knights are better in closed positions.
Eh, regarding unbalanced pawn formations that really depends on whether there are pawns locked on the central squares. In somewhat closed positions with damaged pawn structure knights can sometimes dominate, middlegames and endgames. I think too much depends on the position to throw in "unbalanced pawn formations" as a criterion.
yes u are correct