Bishop vs. Knight

Remember the discussion of piece values a little while ago?  Here is a great game where Black moves a knight three times to capture a bishop that has moved once, and suffers just punishment swiftly!

I agree with lostapiece. You know, I think it comes down to what's on the board when choosing which piece has greater value. What are we all told when we first learn the game:

While the Knight and Bishop may have the same piece value at the game's start, that value changes due to either a crowded board or an empty board. On a crowded board, the Bishops are cut off from long open diagonals. This is when the Knight has greater value since he works better in crowded situation (jumping over other pieces). In am empty board, the diagonals tend to be open and give the Bishop plenty of room to quickly more across the board. The Knight takes a lot more turns to get from one side to the other on an empty board. By the time the Knight goes from Queenside to Kingside, the action may have moved. Thus, I think the value relates to the number of other pieces on the board and the part of the game you're in.

In chess, there are always exceptions to every generalization or rule that you can come up with.  This game is one of them.  After 9 Qxd3...

1.  The e-file is open

2.  There are only two pawns occupying the central squares

3.  Black's king is not in danger

4.  Black has a pair of bishops, and white does not

Typically, these factors add up to a long term advantage for the second player.

Poor Black just couldn't make up the time loss he incurred after capturing the bishop, but this is what I see in all sorts of games at chess.com... players mindlessly moving their knights three or four times to trade is for a bishop that has moved once.  In an open position, it is folly to lose valuable time to gain a bishop pair.