Bishop and Knight - Which is Better?

Sort:
toad4u

Some people believe that the knight is better than the bishop because of its unusual movement, while others like the bishops better than the knights because of their wide range, and some people think that both the bishop and the knight are equal in value. While this is true according to point value, it is almost never true in game play. The knight is special because it can jump over other pieces and can fork easily. The bishop is special because it is the only piece that can only move diagonally, and can easily pin. Let's talk about the beginning of the game, or the opening. In the opening, the knights are usually favorable, because they can jump over other pieces, and bishops are usually blocked by other pieces, specifically pawns. While this is usually the case, there can be some execptions, but this is usually how the opening works. You should not start to trade your knights for bishops that early in the game, as knights are a very valuable and powerful piece. In the endgame, bishops are usually favorable, as the long diagonals that they run on are usually open, allowing them to move freely. They especially help with pawn promotion, as they can quickly get from one side of the board to another. You should not trade a bishop for a knight in the endgame, because bishops can really help you in the endgame. Normally, two bishops is better than two knights. This is because two bishops together can control all of the pieces on the chess board, while two knights cannot. Also, two bishops can force a checkmate, and while it is possible to checkmate with two knights and a king, it is not possible to force checkmate, which is why two bishops generally is better than two knights. However, one knight is better than one bishop, because one bishop cannot control many squares on its own, and a knight has its special ability to jump over pieces, and in the endgame, it is much easier to fork pieces and win the game. So, there you have it. It ultimately depends on the position of your pieces to decide which piece is better, but if you have any additional comments, please feel free to comment in the comment section below. You can also look at the boards I have below. Thank you for taking your time to read this, and I hope this article has helped you. Thanks!

ThrillerFan

There is a problem with your logic.  You are going on generalities when every case is specific (and different).

For starters, if the position is extremely closed (i.e. a lot of locked up pawns) or if all the pawns are on one side of the board, then the Knight pair might very well out do the Bishop pair, even though it's an ending.

A single Bishop might dominate a single knight in an endgame.  For example, ignoring other factors, like where the kings are, a White Bishop on c5 will completely dominate a Knight on c8 of the opposite color (or any other scenario of Knight on the edge, Bishop 3 squares away in the direction perpendicular to the end of the board).

On the flip side, put a Black Bishop on d8 and a White Knight on d5 with White pawns on b4, g3, and h4.  The Bishop is completely dominated.

There are other factors as well.  The old adage by Capablanca states "Queen and Knight are better than Queen and Bishop", and more often than not, that's true, but not always.  Similar thought about Rook and Bishop being better than Rook and Knight.

Additional items include the fact that in order to gain the Bishop pair often takes time and multiple moves of a piece.  This typically means a development advantage for the player without the Bishop pair.  He should be trying to attack as quickly as possible.  A concept known as Increasing the Speed of your Knights.

Another concept that baffles many is that a Bishop can very well control squares of the opposite color.  Case in point, take the Nimzo-Indian, or the main line of the 2...Qxd5 and 3...Qa5 Scandinavian.  In both of these cases, Black's Dark Squared Bishop is pinning and often eventually capturing a White Knight.  After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4, Black's Dark Squared Bishop is actually controlling LIGHT SQUARES!  Think about how a Knight operates.  A knight sitting on a dark square controls light squares (as few as 2, as many as 8).  A knight sitting on a light square controls dark squares.  Therefore, Black's Dark-Squared Bishop is pinning White's Knight on c3, and because of that, the Knight has lost control of e4, and so White can't play 4.e4.  The Dark Squared Bishop is controlling the Light e4-square!

What you need is the book "Bishop V Knight: The Verdict" by Steve Mayer, written in 1997.  Most sites will say it's out of print, but last I saw, some of the specialty sites, like chesscafe.com, still have it in stock.

waffllemaster

Oh, bishop vs knight... I never even stopped to think one might be better than the other... isn't that interesting.

goldendog

the knight can jump now?

livluvrok

I personally like knights better, but I think there's a time and place for both. But I would rather be down 1 bishop and 1 knight, vs down 2 bishops or 2 knights, if that makes any sense

waffllemaster
goldendog wrote:

the knight can jump now?

Really?  Then definitely the knight is better than the bishop.  Case closed.

livluvrok

hahahaha Laughing

ajmeroski

http://www.chessquotes.com/topic-bishops

http://www.chessquotes.com/topic-knights

 

Some quotes on bishops and knights.

 

I generally prefer bishops over knights, though I think knights makes for better combinations. You just cannot resist windmills like that:

Also, I always have a feeling, that knight has the potential to become "monsterish" than bishop if gets a really good outpost.

waffllemaster

.
.
.
This is why you think bishops are better, but really knights are better.
.
.
.



Fingerly

Knights are slow, short-ranged weapons.  Bishops are fast, long-ranged weapons, which is why the U.S. government wants to make them illegal.

Remember, knights don't kill people.  Bishops kill people.

livluvrok

waffllemaster, very true. That's an example of why I like knights better Smile

waffllemaster
livluvrok wrote:

waffllemaster, very true. That's an example of why I like knights better

I've made them a bit sneaky though.  Black has a pretty good move in the final position of both diagrams Tongue Out

ajmeroski

Mate in one ain't no good move, mate.

livluvrok

oh snap, didn't even look for that! I guess there is mate in one after both the puzzles!

ashandpikachu

the knights are like knives and bishop like sword

tee hee nice quote

ashandpikachu

well bishops can only controlled one color

tfulk
waffllemaster wrote:
goldendog wrote:

the knight can jump now?

Really?  Then definitely the knight is better than the bishop.  Case closed.

Well, when moving my bishop a fair distance, say three or more squares, I like to bounce it along, hopping the whole way. In a sense, then, the bishop can jump, too. 

livluvrok
tfulk wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
goldendog wrote:

the knight can jump now?

Really?  Then definitely the knight is better than the bishop.  Case closed.

Well, when moving my bishop a fair distance, say three or more squares, I like to bounce it along, hopping the whole way. In a sense, then, the bishop can jump, too. 

Yes, but in a diagonal line. Moving up one over two or up two over one is much more entertaining. Plus more powerful, in my opinion.

knights_armor

i believe it depends on the position.Bishops are good for open positions and knights are good for closed positions.:)

waffllemaster

Yes, mate in 1.  So in spite of their fancy different movements it really depends on all the rest of the pieces on the board doesn't it!  And because your opponent is free to set up different position starting at move 1, you can't really say one is better than the other.

You could look at thousands of master games to get some statistics... but then you'd just find like Kauffman did, that their value is about 1/50th of a pawn difference, i.e. statistically meaningless.

http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm