Bishop and Knight piece rating controversy.

So I recently bought a chess book called "Learning Chess Visually". In one of the chapters it mentioned that in actuality, the bishop was worth 3.25 "points" and the knight was worth 3 because the bishop was more valuable in endgame strageties.

I don't agree at all, mainly because I like using knights more than I like using bishops, but does Chess.com agree? (with the book)

As long as I know, the value of a piece depends on the position, although in general (and out of the position context) it is true that the "people who has deep understanding of chess" gives a little more value to the bishop than to the knight.

But the interesting point for you, I think, is whether you can understand this nuances in piece values (I mean, the "how" and "why"). And judging for your rating, you can not. Do not take this as an offense; I have to say that I can not understand them, neither. We simply have to learn a lot of more basic things before we can understand/worry about the "exact" value of the bishop.

So, at the end, the fact that you (or any other player) prefer the knight to the bishop has nothing to do with the numerical value of the pieces. I think that the value of the pieces, as long as I know, has its reasons in a deep and very advanced judgement that the average amateur player, like me, is not capable to do or understand.

Good luck in your games.

There are "rules of thumb" and as Leivin said, the value of a piece depends on the position.  A Ns value is adaptable.  resting on the outside edge it is weak. more towards the center, where it attacks more squares it is stronger.  It also gains strength towards the 5th, 6th, and possibly the 7th rank away from it's starting side.  Having a B pair is considered stronger than a N pair as they are long range. But lose one and 1/2 of the board is inaccessable. Plus the N changed color with every move. Another consideration is if it is a closed or open game.  Ns are better in a locked up closed game. 

From "Rethinking the Chess pieces" by Soltis . In this table is reported the average mobility of the pieces obtained from a sample of matches (pawn =1) x number of moves.

Unfortunately the dynamic value of the king is not reported

Notes

He meant in the endgame. And those "rules" are clearly directed towards beginners. Chess is too complicated to be generalized in that way.

The piece value chart is just a cruch beginners use to not give up a R for a N or a Q for N+B. Even the average club player doesn't have to consider it anymore. Every exchange must be assessed in the specific position.

Yeah it explains the logic of the exchange sac too ...

If you include the mobility of the King and considering that till the endgame he's a liability the values could be this

           .6-25       .26-45    .46-65

King       -               -             4

2 bisshops > 2 knights

unless the position is closed, then 2 knights > 2 bisshops.

For Economy Chess I have been thinking alot about this, since you can buy pieces they have to have some kind of worth. players can customize the pieces for themselves, but I chose these prices:

knight: 75 coins

bisshop: 78 coins

This is mainly because people will be able to buy multiple bishops, and multiple Bs are stronger, so I made them a tad more expensive. 

Funny enough it didnt matter alot. Its the situation that makes the price of a piece cheap or expensive.