I suspect that all your answers to this never before seen question can be found here: http://www.chess.com/search?q=bishop%20versus%20knight
:p
Bishop vs knight.
Sort:
May 7, 2013
0
#3
As a general rule... with lots of exceptions...
1) Bishop is better in the middle game if the center is open and there is the possibility of play on both wings. A Knight is better in the middle game if the center is locked (or at least, fixed) and most of the play is confined to one part of the board.
2) A Bishop is better in the endgame if there are Pawns on both wings, and if enemy Pawns are on the Bishop's own color while friendly Pawns are not. A Knight is better in the endgame if all the Pawns are on one side of the board and the Knight has access to squares which will threaten them or drive the hostile King back so that your own King can enter.
May 7, 2013
0
#4
StrengthInPawns wrote:
blueemu forgot to mention (probably because he doesn't know)...
That's right... I'm only a 2100 player, so I probably don't know that.
This time it will leave permanent scars 
May 7, 2013
0
#6
Estragon wrote:
Well, large, flightless birds are notoriously myopic.
But he was stereotyping, which makes him a h8tr.
Just because I signed up in the "Stupid People" thread... now everybody thinks I'm dumb.
Pawns are best. They have potential.
May 7, 2013
0
#8
AlCzervik wrote:
Pawns are best. They have potential.
Agreed. Don't ever underestimate the Pawns. You've got to watch the little buggers closely, or they'll be all over you.
I knew this question would end up in the hot topics.
Pawns are way better. Make sure you have some left at end. And can we all go home now?
Oh, can I ask you a simular question? What tone do you prefer? C or D? Or does is depend on the mode? You know, minor, major? You can even add a 'flat or a 'sharp''. Wow, what a wonderful world 
May 8, 2013
0
#11
We need to be careful when considering musical "notes" as the term 'C' (in english language use) is a term used to describe an associated frequency (or rather series of frequencies - the harmonic "C" series, a logarithm scale of repeating octaves). Note that 'C' maps to a range of frequencies, therefore its useage is relative, so use with caution!
If you were to go back a few years in fact, you would find that a 'C' was more like a 'D'.
The point is, when we understand things deeper they become less mysterious and then we can quantitively discuss them, rather than speaking ancedotally.
Chess is in many aspects, a discrete system therefore suited to examples that can be measured for advantage/disadvantage. This is how I would prefer to see opinions presented.
There is always the circle of quints, you know. It makes sense... It is here to stay. Like forever and a day
StrengthInPawns wrote:
blueemu forgot to mention (probably because he doesn't know)
But there is an extra bonus for having your bishop pair intact. There are lots of openings that aim to deprive the opponent of their bishop pair or exchange knights for bishops in the hopes of securing ones own bishop pair against an odd bishop or knight pair.
Tandem bishops can do some massive raking. And KBB can force mate vs. lone King.
So can K+B+N v K, it's just very difficult to learn how to.
May 8, 2013
0
#14
chasm1995 wrote:
So can K+B+N v K, it's just very difficult to learn how to.
Actually, the method is quite straightforward. Only Grandmasters seem to have trouble with it.
StrengthInPawns wrote:
But there is an extra bonus for having your bishop pair intact.
Actually, Kaufmann believes that the statistical superiority of the bishop is entirely due to the bishop pair, which would be worth roughly half a pawn. See here : http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
May 8, 2013
0
#16
StrengthInPawns wrote:
blueemu doesn't know that the bishop pair is generally more attractive than other sets of two minor pieces.
Struck me as odd at first. But he also doesn't know about en passant.
I should never have signed up in that "Stupid People" thread.
My theory is that bishops move faster across the board in open positions, and can pin, and in rare occasions, fork, but are bad if they are blocked by their own pawns. Knights are fork masters, but they can't pin, and are better almost always in closed positions, as they can jump. But they have a limited range. Overall, bishops are better. But don't always think that. And don't think that taking both his knights can prevent any forks.
StrengthInPawns wrote:
:)
tliu1222 wrote:
My theory is that bishops move faster across the board in open positions, and can pin, and in rare occasions, fork, but are bad if they are blocked by their own pawns. Knights are fork masters, but they can't pin, and are better almost always in closed positions, as they can jump. But they have a limited range. Overall, bishops are better. But don't always think that. And don't think that taking both his knights can prevent any forks.
I like how he says 'my theory' when stating and absolute bleeding fact. He should publish a book and call it 'My Theory'. Maybe I will buy 'My Theory' and it will replace My System on the book shelf...
StrengthInPawns wrote:
what tliu1222 doesn't realize, due to extremely weak chess knowledge is that if you eliminate both knights, there is a 0% chance of a fork occurring over the course of the rest of the game.
source: a simulation in which trillions of games were played starting from positions/openings where both knights were removed.
ironically, the dependent queen spooned her strong protective, providing, better-at-chess king. but no forking.
What about a pawn fork? Doesn't sound right to me...
When is a bishop better than a knight and when is a knight better than a bishop?