Bishops are not better than Knights

I made computers play blitz games with those positions on Arena.

Rybka won overwhelmingly, but overall, bishops were better in that tournament.

agree

Knights are great in bullet

I find both knights and bishops tricky in blindfold. I think they've managed to capture my queen about equally many times.

If you have a bad bishop and a good night, there's no telling what the bishop would do.

I like Knights more, generally, but what do I know.

I'll play, VULPES_VULPES!

Yay! Want to do a forum or a message game?

Well, If you're telling everybody that, then how is it a "secret?"

LOL

Bishops tend to be considered slightly better than knights simply because as the game nears an end, it is much easier to open a position than close it.

On wider board variations such as Gothic / Capablanca - knights are valued about 2.5 pawns and bishop increase strenght slightly.

In normal chess however it always depend on the situation, but in general people tends to favour the bishop long range potential over the slow moving knight.

Well, from the very start the game is wide open.  And I don't think the reason for their general superiority is very simple at all.

What?! Half the squares are occupied!

Bishops are better in open positions, knights are better in closed. Its easier to open a game than close it. You can open a closed position but its hard to close an open position. Therefore bishops > Knights.

It's a bit more complicated than that...

Al is definitly a board-is-half-full kida guy!

Whereas all I see is a vaste wasteland of squares I'll never occupy. 

i saw an article once entitled, Bobby Fischer can beat you without his bishops....

Of course the simple question to all of this is IT DEPENDS ON THE POSITION!

Two bishops can force mate rather easily and two knights cannot .