Bishops are not better than Knights

My namesake demands that I concur! All hail the mighty Knight!

most of us patzers dont get to endgames anyways, and every 5th move is a blunder, so we don't notice any miniscule advantage knights vs buships

Totally disagree - patzers fail to reach endgames because they're afraid of them, not because 1300s are incapable of simplifying to even (or mostly even) material due to blunder. Not only that, bishops present very direct plans for themselves - domination on a chosen color complex. Knights create complications, but bishops define entire positions. Even the stonewall bishop - the much maligned creature trapped behind a fortress of its own pawns - will shine like the morningstar if you spend a few moves navigating it to the right square.

Bishops are so excellent at their jobs, that I shall recommend to the pope they be elevated to cardinals!

Erm no, it really isn't as "simples" as this. Chess is incredibly complicated and difficult.

I would say Bishops are better. Only thing that's special about a knight is you can't defend against it, and what sucks about it is it can't pin. But bishops can pin, fork, and pressure, not to mention it is way better in the end-game than knights. Knights take forever to reach the board while Bishops travel further. So bishops should be better. 

spidey is better than any bishop or knight.

Yep. Taimanov was a great player. 

not better than spidey.

to bring a more modern focus on the topic, are gaybishops better than gayknights ? for those that are bicurious.

wow, that's a great question, tuna. at first i thought it had to be gaybishops, 'cause they can go far. but, then i thought, gayknights can be very creative. really, how many other pieces have such an easy time forking others?

interested to hear others thoughts on this.

good post fiveofswords! if you ever advance past the absolute beginner phase, you might begin to realize all that hidden potential and correct your strange ideas about the game.

I like two knights because it is the only piece that can fork queens without being defended by other pieces. however, the bishop pair are better when there are no other pieces other than the two bishops since they can perform checkmate while the two knights can't. but in the middle game, the knight makes a better creative attack

the main disadvantage of the knight is that sometimes you could end up checking your own king by accident.

not many games begin with a player having two queens. plus, what if they are gayqueens? does that mean they work in unison better? so many questions..

films with gayqueens would be much more popular than films with gaykings, gayknights or gaybishops, Al. although that might not apply on a chess site possibly, i was thinking of the global appeal.

I am not a gaybishop and I am better from knight in most parts of the game. I am not sure if I am better from a gayknight when the opponent don't have desire to play in open/semi open board. But this is why I belong to g5. g5 is a gaysquare.

Love you Tuna. I missed you.

tuna on top of it again. yes, gayqueens would probably be more popular in film than gaykings.

on a chess site, though...

Ever seen underpromotion =B ?