For me, piece advantage depends on the pawn structure. in a close game, i think knights are better. For example in french defense, black's light square bishop is considered as the problem piece for black because of the usual pawn structure that may arise in french defense. For open games, i would likely retain my bishops for i perceive that they are more superior than knights.
Bishops and Knights, Chess Debate
Sort:
I will take a knight over a bishop in an endgame any day. If the opponent's pawn chain in on white colored squares and your bishop is on the black squares, then your bishop is useless. Knights can weave around and take them out from the back. Although I pay more attention to the bishops in opening/middlegame. There is nothing more painful than having your queen pinned by a bishop. :(
bishop, because their attack range is long and fast in open games which I'm better at. (but close games you have to go with Knight because their unblockable)
I would say the most agreeable answer to this posting is that it depends on the situation (I'm sure you;ve never heard that before).
I personally prefer to use/retain my knights as I feel more skilled with them. However, I have been hurt many times by bishops I lost site of or failed to block/defend. I think in a coin toss decision making process, I'd have to give the edge to the bishops (especially because of their range), but again, personally I prefer the knight if I have to pick one over the other.
Okay. In this forum you can post about which piece you like better. if you don't like one piece more than another, post why. and don't just post "bishops are better and stronger" or something like that, explain why you think bishops are better and stronger. Here's the twist :) if you disagree at what someone says, you can explain why you disagree in a civilized, explanatory, and open-minded manner.Now lets see if we can defend our piece!