Timur2010usa wrote:
It happens to everyone,for example, I yawn the Mat in one move in an equal position,but I don't cry like you,and I learn from my mistakes.
lol
Bishop or Knight: Which is more valuable?
Sort:
At the higher level, the bishop is considered slightly better, because bishops are good in open positions, while knights outplay other pieces in closed positions. However, closed position can easily open up; This is why the bishop is considered slightly better. Another reason is that the bishop pair is considered a positional advantage, so this sentence talks for itself
Saying this without explanation is literally nonesennse
Sep 12, 2020
0
#26
chamo2074 wrote:
Saying this without explanation is literally nonesennse
Without reading my comments above and then blabbering is nonsense too.
ohk lol I apologize
Jan 31, 2021
0
#29
I’m an intermediate player at best so take this with a grain. But in my experience, when playing people at my level, I find we are more susceptible to forks by knights. Personally, I just feel like my knights are more effective.
Jan 31, 2021
0
#30
DazSaunders wrote:
I've read a number of books that rate a bishop over a knight, but only very slightly, not 3.5, more like 3.15 - 3.25.
Any piece value is based from the start position before a move had been made, as obviously their value will change dependent on the position. The higher value is based on being able to cover a larger distance, while the knight is limited with its travel but obviously changes "colour" every time it moves.
This information is incorrect. The value of the pieces is determined by their average value over time. There are more positions where the B is more valuable than the N than the other way around. Two Bishops are almost always worth more than two Knights.
There are several correct explanations of the relative value of the pieces in this thread, but one is better off researching the information online rather than asking questions of the general public here.
adelicategenius wrote:
Fischer said a Bishop is worth 3.25, not 3.5.
Agree
Depends ......
But knights are better in blitz , pretty much always.
I wouldn't really know the answer. Knights have a unique movement that no other piece has, which is good. Bishops have the long-range, which is also good. I'm pretty sure bishops at 3.2 or 3.3 would make sense. I can see myself using bishops more than knights, though knights can be a killer.
I think it depends on your preference, which do you feel comfortable playing, how do you usually use them? I use my bishops a lot for trades and supporting other pieces, I use my knights to do lots of control over the board.
1
in terms of positional play, Knights are useful in closed positions due to their capibility to move over pieces, allowing them to bypass pesky pawn locks with a little bit of manuvering. Bishops, however, are better in open positions
2
3
4
Bishops are worth slightly more than Knights. This has been accepted since the days of Morphy. I don't know exactly how many centi-pawns Bs are worth compared to Knights ...
I just looked up Stockfish's generic evaluation of the pieces. It's a bit difficult to read, but here's about what Stockfish does:
Pawns are worth 1.008 pawns (they gain in value as they progress toward the 8th rank)
N= 3.191
B=3.266
R=4.961
Q=9.848
Source: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=442995&t=41916
There are some positions where Ns are worth more than Bs, but two Bs are worth about a pawn more than two Ns.
The most important thing is to remember these values change with the position. Play the position and work out which piece is better in that given position.
That's interesting.
I always kind of suspected that a queen was actually worth more than 9 points. Like I'd take a queen over a rook+knight+pawn in 90% of situations.