Bishops are not better than Knights

Edward II was a gay king.

Historians used to believe that he was killed by a red hot iron poker being shoved up his backside, but this is apparently not true.

It depends on the position. Sometimes 2 bishops can be equal to a queen. some times a knight can be equal to a queen. The bishops are better because they are more active. Lets place 2 bishops in the center of an open board: as you can see they control the whole board. The bishops in the endgame are getting the rook 's value. I agree with NM Reb for what he said.

https://www.chess.com/tactics/?id=66202

That's like saying a spoon is more useful than a fork when eating. It depends what the situation is. 

"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"

True that about the queen, but the only thing that is special about the knight is it can't be blocked and it can jump over pieces. Even if knights can't be blocked, knights can't attack pins unlike bishops which can attack diagonal pins. Also, knights are only good for start-mid game, not in the end-game. a knight will take forever to get to stop pass pawn. And it's dangerous if an opponent has both bishops, pass pawns and you're only left with two knights and all the other pieces. Here's an example for why knights suck at endgame. 

So in this I would have played  Rh5+ , Kc4, Rxf5 and white resign. This is because the knight can't even reach the pass pawn, and without the bishop the game is lost. In this situation, the bishop is very very important. Knight, was useless.This was with my friend holding a grudge against me after me winning two matches in a row, he messed up here. I was playing white, and this was the end-game. If he had done what I did here, I would have no doubt lost. But he was too afraid to take the bishop because he treasured the rook. And the game ended up as a tie by me being 1 up by a knight because I forked his rook by him again messing up accidentally. 

I have a preference for knights but i always expect a compensation when i trade my bishop for a knight.

Knight+compensation=bishop, can vary greatly depending position

Pointless discussion, people just projecting their personalities on these two pieces... a never ending tale.

Checkmate is better.

The Knights move is composed of two different steps. First, it makes one step of one single square along the rank or file on which it stands. Then, still moving away from the square of departure, it moves one step of one single square on a diagonal. It does not matter if the square of the 1st step is occupied. Note that the knight always moves to a square of a different color.

The knight move is too complicated for amatures, making the piece virtually worthless. Patzers visulize the move as an L shape. The master understands it's real movement knowing the knight does not jump over anything.

I'm pretty sure a lot of players disagree with you.

The knight moves in an L shape and jumps over pieces. I haven't heard any master disagree with this.

Most players think of the knight move as a single step, not 2 steps.

Patzers tend to value their knight more than masters because it is a complicated piece (making it easier for a knight to create tactics). Far from worthless.

Very debate able that most players think of the move as an L shape. This is taught especially in the West. Not true for many parts of the world.

Read the Official rules of chess by the uscf regarding how the knight moves and you will find the true move pattern as I described.

My comment about the knight being worthless obviously was tongue in cheek. A poke at the OP.

I think one needs to look at the Alphabet to find the answer.

Give the corresponding number for where each letter appears in the Alphabet.

B  I   S  H   O   P

2+9+19+8+15+16 = 69

K    N   I  G  H  T                                                                                     11+14+9+7+8+20 = 69

Summation - They are both of exactly equal value.  

In practice, I don't think players view the move as a shape but simply see the squares available for the knight.

Any decent chess player understands that it depends on the position. Knights are better if the position is closed, bishops if it's open. Seems pretty simple to me.

Except when the Knight is.

I agree.

I checked some different explanation of how a knight moves. I was a bit surprised to see how FIDE defined it, but I didn't see your explanation anywhere.

FIDE:

"The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal."

USCF (link from website):

"The knight's move is special. It hops directly from its old square to its new square. The knight can jump over other pieces between its old and new squares. Think of the Knight's move as an "L." It moves two squares horizontally or vertically and then makes a right-angle turn for one more square. The Knight always land on a square opposite in color from its former square"

Wikipedia:

"The knight moves to any of the closest squares that are not on the same rank, file, or diagonal, thus the move forms an "L"-shape: two squares vertically and one square horizontally, or two squares horizontally and one square vertically. The knight is the only piece that can leap over other pieces."

Only knight moves can drive the opponent bonkers and off their game.  The knight is the only piece that can attack a king with a fork, win a piece, and then gallop off untouched.  With proper knight play, you never need end up in an endgame stalemate.  They're better than bishops.  

You also can't lose your knight to a knight fork! Even GMs find knights tricky beasts.    

But for a long, serious game where you are trying to win I think it's the minority of the time the knight is better. Sometimes, but more often it's the bishop.

(at least that's what I was told).