Bishop or Knight?
Sort:
Knights definitely
Knight are way better
I like knights mostly because of how flexible they are. You don't need to open up a lane to use them.
Art0fArcane wrote:
MinimilkChess wrote:
I like knights mostly because of how flexible they are. You don't need to open up a lane to use them.
at the same time, knights are predictable, you can see where they can go and they have to be really close to attack anything. You are right, but I just think they have better attack patterns.
Oct 20, 2020
0
#185
MinimilkChess wrote:
I like knights mostly because of how flexible they are. You don't need to open up a lane to use them.
Well, you still need to secure good outposts for them to be effective, though.
Oct 20, 2020
0
#186
In bullet the knight is better since you opponent takes longer to figure out all the options
Bing55 wrote:
Well, you still need to secure good outposts for them to be effective, though.
True. I guess I just like the tactical play.
Okay i read all the comments I think I have read enough opinions xD
Bobby Fischer says that a bishop is slightly more than a knight, 3.25 points rather than 3
i would say stop arguing a knight is 1000.11 while a bishop is 0.12
Oct 24, 2020
0
#191
Levent_Acemi wrote:
But that's not a reason that you won't play Exchange variation on Ruy Lopez :)
yep, position matters too!
chessnoob4151 wrote:
i drank too much water and now im drunk
no, that makes you choke. How to get drunk? Knock yourself out with a chair and you'll experience the same hangover.(i wouldn't know, im underage as well)
Knights scare me for the amount of unseen damage they can do in just one or two moves. When playing a skilled opponent, I would gladly sacrifice my bishop for his knight.
Oct 25, 2020
0
#194
Trailboy99 wrote:
Knights scare me for the amount of unseen damage they can do in just one or two moves. When playing a skilled opponent, I would gladly sacrifice my bishop for his knight.
lol same here!
Me two
Oct 25, 2020
0
#196
I've read an article about chess pieces of old. Apparently the Bishop was the Elephant, back when chess was created in India.
An Elephant is so much nicer than a Bishop, and less creepy. Sugestion to chess.com: Create an option to play with an Elephant instead of a Bishop, same range, same piece, but different model. Put your graphic artists to work on it, and something good will happen this year!
Of course, In different situations it Varys. Although one benifit of knights is how much more space they can control.
Opponents knights have demons - this is why I wipe them out at any cost
Honestly, I am not in favor of bishops being worth 4 points. That’s too close to the value of a rook. I think in general that it is better to have 2 bishops than 2 knights but they are otherwise equal
EnergeticHay wrote:
bishop
Do you prefer the bishop or the knight? Should the bishop be worth 4 points and the knight still only 3? Why? 
Here's what I think:
- Both should be 3 "points" in the material system because they both have great potential
- Bishops are obviously better in more open positions as you can use their long range
- Knights can hop from dark to light squares, bishops cannot.
- Knight forks are so annoying! Many times N+Q combo is better than B+Q or R+Q combo
- The bishop becomes stronger when there's a pair helping each other out. (Not just a bishop pair on the board, but the bishops help each other)
My conclusion: Bishops are generally slightly better than knights, but knights have more potential to cause brilliancies due to the eccentric way they move. (So... I like knights better. They're my favorite piece 
)
What do you guys think? 
