A bishop pair is worth more than 2 bishops simply added together though.
That's what strong computers and strong players say. Rybka gives .4 advantage to an otherwise even position if one side has the bishop pair. It can help you have a better middlegame and endgame but in practice might not really matter.
lol also the OP hasnt commented at all compared to the amount of posts he has reasived
The thing is, the general conception is that bishops are better than knights is rusted into the chess community so much that too much ive seen players giving up superior posted knight for my bad bishop. Tyvm indeed.
bishops are more mobile than knights and are able to slip through most cracks, openings and weak points in an enemy's formation, they are at a disadvantage though at being able to only control one color and thus only half of the board. Knights on the other hand are more unpredictable and can attack without being attacked at in turn due to the unusual manner in which they attack though they are slower than bishops in reaching certain areas of the board
I think Capablanca's view here is a great one.
Here's his quote:
"The weaker the player the more terrible the Knight is to him, but as a player increases in strength the value of the Bishop becomes more evident to him, and of course there is, or should be, a corresponding decease in his estimation of the value of the Knight as compared to the bishop."
I have to disagree with shokkin and Capablanca here. I know most beginners fall in love with the forking power of knights early on. Most of their wins often come from an unexpected knight fork. Later, their opponents stop falling for this simple trick, and players begin learning how to use the other pieces in their army.
This forum is a little silly. Bishops can be better than Knights and vice versa, depending on the position.
In the opening position, Bishops are very slightly better than Knights.
BS
Anybody that makes a blanket statement that Bishops are better than Knights or Knights are better than Bishops is nothing more than an utter moron!
Every position must be taken individually. There are even times where a Bishop or a Knight is better than a Rook! As for the two minor pieces, either piece can dominate the other piece.
If you look at the two diagrams below, the first one the Bishop completely dominates the Knight, and White has a won position (any g-pawn push, ...g6 or ...g5, will be answered by h6, locking the King out).
In the second position, despite being a pawn down, White is again winning because the Knight dominates the Bishop. The King can get to the Bishop by running to e8, but he can get no further as any Bishop move drops the Bishop, and without a Bishop move, the King can never get in. White will eat up the c5-pawn and then ideally position the King, triangulating until Black is in Zugzwang and White gets the King to d7.
The minor exchange refers to the capture of the opponent's bishop for the player's knight (or, more recently, the stronger minor piece for the weaker) (Soltis 2004:169). Bobby Fischer used the term (Benko 2007:192,199,216), but it is rarely used.
In most chess positions, a bishop is worth slightly more than a knight because of its longer range of movement. As a chess game progresses, pawns tend to get traded, removing support points from the knight and opening up lines for the bishop. This generally leads to the bishop's advantage increasing over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_exchange_%28chess%29#Minor_exchange
Anybody that makes a blanket statement that Bishops are better than Knights or Knights are better than Bishops is nothing more than an utter moron!
True, although the positions in this post are very one-sided. Real chess is hardly ever as black-and-white as this. In a typical bishop vs knight position, both pieces will have their own different strengths and weaknesses, and the result will come down to which player handles the specifics of their position better.
With apologies to the Moody Blues, Nights in White Satin, and all that is Holy:
Knights in white satin, never reaching the end.
Dust they have bitten... to attack and defend.
Duty has always been ... to suprise before,
what the right the move is... I can't say anymore...
Chorus:
♫ And I mate you-oooooooo... ♫ whoa-ohhhh ♫ how I mate you-ooooooooo Whoa-oh whoa-oh-oh , ohhhh....ohhhhh
Grazing for tactics, they won't understand
...just what I'm going to do, they can't comprehend.
Some try to trap me, with lines they cannot defend.
If that's how they gonna play - they'll lose in the end.
♫ And I mate you-oooooooo... ♫ whoa-ohhhh ♫ how I mate you-ooooooooo Whoa-oh whoa-oh-oh , ohhhh....ohhhhh
Knights are stronger it is a conspiracy to hold new chess players down
Only if you are a GM or stronger than bishop => knight. So don't be fooled and trade your bishops off for knights right away.
Knights are easier to bust up than bishops. People tend to make them defend each other and then you can slyly raise the number of attackers and take one or both out. Not so easy with bishops unless they get stacked in a row or file.
26 / 16 = 1,625. In other words the bishop is 62,5% more mobile than the knight.
26 / 16 = 1,625. In other words the bishop is 62,5% more mobile than the knight.
Stuck on one colour square mind. Knights are slower but can cover the whole board.
(Incidently, this is where the idea of the bishop-pair advantage comes from. A bishop-pair gives a bit of the best of both worlds - the mobility of the bishop and somewhat negates the problem of a bishop being restricted to 32 squares, because between them they can cover all 64.)
From my research there is a slight difference between on how humans and computers evaluates and handles the pair.
Another important factor is the cognitive advantage for the player that possess the pair.
Take a look at the next game at move 29. I had the black pieces and I chose not to exchange the knight for the bishop yet exchanged my bishop the next move against his knight, because:
1. to avoid an endgame with different colored bishops,
2. I consider the knight stronger in the endgame when all pawns are on one side of the board.
Knights are better in closed positions; bishops are better in open positions. Simples.
Knights are better in Blitz/Bullet, as they are more time consuming to calculate their moves. Pieces that move in straight lines are easier to calculate. Knights require more time to figure out where it's going and how its getting there, and this time is often in short supply.
I guess Fischer and other great champions didnt know what they were talking about then ?! My own experience is that bishops are better than knights more often than not . Ofcourse it all depends on positional consideration and sometimes the knight is better .
talking about one single knight and one single bishop, the bishop is confined to his colour, the knight is not
This is true but its also true that a bishop has much more mobility than a knight , controlling a maximum of 13 squares to a knights 8 . In many endings a bishop can both help to advance a passed pawn while also fighting against an opponents passed pawn where a knight often cannot do both and must choose whether to help advance his own pawn or to stop the advance of the opponents ... both pieces can fork the opponents pawns/pieces but only the bishop can also pin and skewer ...
I think there is three types of chess players:
1. those who think bishops is better than knights
2. those who think knights is better than bishops
3. and those who try to teach the other two groups that IT DEPENDS ON THE POSITION!