Bishop or Knight?

well 2 bishops beat a rook, but 2 knights lose to a rook

2 knights still relatively equal to a rook

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo as long as no forks rook wins

first of all, what is ur context, just a king and rook vs 2 knights and a king?

then it should be draw if white defends mate and doesnt get forked or skewered

knights, since they can fork easier and that...

knights because in knight bishop engeames i get crushed byknight

They're equally good with very different strengths. Bishops obviously better in pairs since you control each color complex, knights better in closed positions. Generally speaking the question of knight vs bishop really comes down to who can create a position that is more beneficial to their minor piece of choice. I like setting up endings where my knights dominate bishops because so many people will instantly trade a knight for a bishop in fast games without really considering if it's a good idea. Knights also tend to combine better with your heavy pieces (queens and rooks) since their sphere of square control is so different.

knights r tricky and fun to play with tho, but bishops are objectively better

yeah

in bughouse knights r better

i like nights because you can fork yum yum

you can fork yum yum at any time of the day, not only at night

bruh I meant knight 

well bobby fischer isn't always right

kinda agree

knights, more tricky

1) Bishops. 2) That policeman joke is hilarious thx for it!

actually u can iv done it before 

I think it partly depends on the opening you play. If you play the dragon or similar structures then your dark square bishop is worth almost a rook to you in some cases. How often does black avoid taking a rook on a1 in those positions? However if you are playing in a Shveshnikov Sicilian then then trading that dark square bishop for the knight defending d5 makes a lot of sense. So a lot of our biases may come from our own opening repertoire.