Bishop vs. Knight


The minor pieces are very schizophrenic. In some games they are very good and in others they are very bad. Often in a game of chess one of the minor pieces is much better than any of the others. You should try to make your minor pieces better than your opponent's!
Here is an example of a knight that is way better than a bishop:
http://blog.chess.com/Loomis/the-better-minor-piece
Many experts have agreed that they are equal in value. The reason for this I think is that you can't win with bishop and king vs. king or knight and king vs king. I, personally like knights better mainly because of the elegant forks that you can do with him and the discovered checks are more powerfull-with a bishop you don't have time to atack a rook or queen because the opponent will move it...
The exchange during a game: bishop takes defended knight is worth the trouble if it's a closed game, with many diagonals closed by your pawns wich have in front oponent's pawns so they won't move soon. In this case you have what is called a "bad bishop" so it's a good tactical strategy to get rid of him and of the opponents knight who is devastating in closed games. Viceversa if the conditions above are not fullfiled :) [sorry for the mistakes, I am Romanian]
Who do you prefer?