Bishop or Knight: Who is Better

I prefer bishops because they take up long diagonals, but positions that are close can alter the circumstance towards a knight probably. But I think bishop is better still. 

Knights are better, cause you can fork and the fork is can't seen in matches and it is good in complicated positions. Otherwise bishops are better in endgame 🤔

Knights probably

It can go many ways.

1. Effectiveness in an endgame

- Two bishops can force checkmate against a bare king, though it's rather difficult.

- One bishop and one knight can force checkmate against a bare king, but it's notoriously difficult.

- Two knights cannot force checkmate against a bare king. Period.

- On the other hand, there's a common addition to the "never resign" mentality some people have: never resign when you have a knight. It's simultaneously hilarious and sad to watch someone go into an endgame with a queen, only to lose it because they didn't pay attention to the knight and got forked.

2. The position itself

- If there's a lot of pieces clogging the board, you'd probably wish you could have four knights to maneuver around and get into difficult places.

- On the other hand, when almost nothing is there (see above), bishops can finally see their full potential, while knights (with the exception of their forking potential) aren't so helpful anymore.

3. Both?

- Keeping both bishops until the end can make them surprisingly powerful, because they can fork fairly easily as well if the opponent isn't paying attention.

- Two knights can have some advantages as well; in particular, their ability to defend each other. There's also twice as many opportunities to fork out of nowhere.

As with most chess questions. The answer is...Depends.