Bishops are not better than Knights

Bishops for the endgames and Knights for open positions. Pawn+bishop vs Pawns + Knight, In endgame positions like that you always loose if having the knight. So it depends on how far into the game you are when excanging. In the endgame i would be very keen to exchange my knight for a opponent bishop no doubt. That would be equal to gaining a draw when having a loosing position. Closed midgame positions on the other hand are the games where knights really comes to life. So it depends...

My name is F3Knight. I love the Knight. Having love for a piece is fine, but you must realize it's strengths and weaknesses in all positions.

Knights are a little better earlier in the game, and as pieces die, bishops get stronger. This is not to say there are exceptions for both pieces, in both types of games, closed/open.

The best thing about a Knight, however, is that if you are being attacked by a Knight, and you're not a Knight, you are not attacking the Knight back. Every other piece on the board can re-create that scenario....but not a Knight. This is due to HOW they attack. This attacking movement gives them certain advantages that other pieces simply do not have. Also, they can get the closest to the Queen without being attacked by her. This makes them assassins of the strongest piece, if you will.

Give me a Bishop to your Knight in an endgame though and you will lose. Take care. Stop being stubborn (author) and realize your pieces strengths and weaknesses. 


-F3Knight 

A knight is Mr. Fork. Bishops barely fork, so aren't knights better? Well, probably no. Bishops are good defenders of pawns in the endgame, and also, if they find an open diagonal, they are worth a rook and an extra pawn. But if supported knights get into enemy territory where no pawns can attack it, it is priceless! So, really, I don't know. Anybody have something else to add about bishops and knights?

Bishops get better, the later the game goes, I find.

Pawns can get better, too.

Martin0 wrote:

You have to consider how many squares pieces can potentally control as well. Otherwise if we consider the initial position only knights and pawns can move and all other pieces are worthless.But I guess you guys doesn't mind starting a game with only knights, king and pawns against a full army since the you have more moves at your disposal (You have 22 possible moves while your opponent only has 20).

in my opinion,no offence,that suggestion is idiotic.the king is powerless,so it does not count

I have no illusions as to which piece I prefer - bishops hands down. I can't think of a game yet that I've won without the help of a bishop.

Only idiots make dogmatic statements.

Uhm.. wait...

Seriously though; two favourite quotes on this subject:

"The Bishop is stronger, but the Knight is more cunning."

and my personal favourite:

"Bishop takes Knight. This is how GMs beat IMs."

And king and pawn vs king and bishop is usually drawn, even when the bishop is far away. Duh.

Of course it depends on the position, but... I am not a titled player, but I surely hold the real truth, and it is obvious that the knight is <insert comparative> than the bishop.

In general:

Bishops > knights in open positions

Knights>bishops in closed positions.

Closed positions can open up, open positions rarely closes. In the end, bishop is strongest.

And 1 more thing. If the bishops sits on b2 and b1, they defend black from using the a-file for his rooks, while attacking (maybe indirectly) h7 and g7. 2 knights can't both defend and attack so effectivly

I can point to an ending where king-pawn-bishop vs a lone king is a draw. So clearly bishops are useless.

knights are generally worse at stopping pawns than bishops. They can fail even when they are close to a single pawn trying to get sacrificed (and they are especially bad against a- and h-pawns).

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/torturing-the-bad-bishop

Your second diagram, with the knight and pawn against the king who is in the corner is clearly a draw...

As well as the first one.

His point was precisely that showing one example of situation where either is superior to the other does not mean it is superior generally speaking.

I Think a bishop pair is about 6.5 points but one bishop is 3 points. Of course not in closed possitions.

With all else off of the board a bishop/bishop or bishop/knight combination is needed to mate the king. Two knights can't. 

Two bishops create a diagonal wall a king cannot pass. Thus they are more akin to a rook if played in conjunction.

Bishops can attack pawns on opposite sides of the board, whereas knights need several moves to span the board to attack  remote pawns.

However it is easier to trap a bishop.

Closed positions favor knights, where they can paralyze the position at the enemies back ranks.  Positional players like Tigran Petrosian favored knights as they strangled their opponents with them!

Bishops are always better at knights when the position indicates so and the knights are always better than bishops for the exaxt same reason.

I think Kd5 is the move