Bishops are not better than Knights

No we are not just talking about top Gm-s or engines only. However at endgames it's generally more important with the true evaluations and perfect play rather than practical chances. With a few pieces practical chances are usually very low and as a general rule practical chances should not be part of evaluations. K+N+N+P+P vs K+B+B+P+P is a draw if neither player has an advantage besides the material (equally good placed pieces).

However that condition is quite big since endgames can be decided by a single tempo, the knights could risk being trapped by the bishops and the knights can be tricky trying to fork things. However it would be very rare that the bishops would lose since bishops can easily stop pawns if they need to be sacrificed and 2 knights can usually not mate without other pieces (it's sometimes possible when the opponent has pawn). Knights can sometimes struggle a lot trying to stop pawns.

Here is an endgame where K+B+P vs K+N+P wins because the bishop is superior to the knight and that the knight has trouble against a-pawns (I checked with tablebase) in these type of endgames. The side with the bishop won't ever lose similar to this, so the bishop is superior in these type of endgames, although the knight should quite often be able to draw. If it was just black to move instead of white in the initial position black would be able to draw, but he would still need to play accurate (see sidelines in the second diagram where white also wins by dominating with the bishop vs knight if black plays wrong)

but in the openings i think knights are better.

I would trade my bishop for a knight anyday!  I know that bishops can be powerful late game, but the knight is the only piece that cannot be blocked and they are sneaky as well.  I often refer to a knight as the backdoor king!! :D

I haven't read many of the posts here, so apologies if this has already been said. My favorite explanation of the bishop/knight problem comes from Silman's The Amateur's Mind. Silman says that they are both worth three points of material and that it is up to YOU as the player to make your piece better than the opponent's. If you drift passively, the opponent's knight may dominate your bishop, whereas if you MAKE your piece better then it will dominate. So a superior minor piece is made, not born according to Silman.

Tht idea of made not born is perfect. Still, in general it is much easier to open a position than close it which in general gives super tiny preference to bishops.

I really like how you put that. Chess moves forward, as should the attacking pieces. Well said. 

Fischer Said that the bishop is 3,25 points

3.25. 3.26. Whatever it takes.

While I think bishops are slightly stronger, generally speaking, than knights, I believe knights are more of a precision instrument. Using them to their maximum potential is a fine art. Using Bishops doesn't take as much skill in my opinion, so it would stand to reason most players below the master level would quickly agree that Bishops are better.

I wonder what GM's would say about this. I would even like to know what CM and above have to say.

knights are generally unpredictable, and have a greater potential to turnover the game as compared to bishops. They are pretty much useful throughout the start right before the endgame. 
In the endgame where the squares is generally empty, with a few pawns around, knights lose their value. They are horrible at blocking, cant checkmate,need support, hard to defend due to they're L shaped movement, and also hard to maneuver across the board.
Personally I think their better than bishops, since the endgame is really determined by how you have played in the beginning. I've been able to win some losing games with the help of the knight, the bishop does not hold that stature.

while bishop is a stronger piece, the knight is more tactically handy. Unblockable checks are probably the most useful thing about the knight. Though hard to maneuver in the endgame they are really the only piece by itself that can trap the queen.

every piece has its role....noone should say that a pawn is less important than the queen....so why compare Bishops to Knights...it is like comparing apples to oranges...they both have their pros n cons,their very own movement and that is what everyone should exploit to play better.

The knight and bishop are objectively speaking (almost) equal, even though a lot of players (especially beginners) are afraid of the sneaky knights. The bishop pair, however is clearly better than N+B or especially N+N, since the bishops cover each other weaknesses, and is much more easier to get them coordinated, whereas it's harder to coordinate two knights.

1.It's their, they're is a contraction

2.Bishops are worth more than knights, especially the bishop pair.  Bishops cover more squares and have greater range, though this is a generality.  There are specific positions where a knight is more useful than a queen, but it'd be ludicrous to claim that a knight is generally stronger than a queen.

3.Knights are actually the best blockading piece due to their jumping ability and they don't compromise their activity by blocking a piece.  They sit in front of the pawn and watch over other squares.  Let's say a black knight is on d6, and white has e4 and d6 pawns.  The knight doesn't just blockade the pawn, but threatens the e4 pawn as well.

4.True, knights tend to shine more when more pawns are on the board, but they still have potential wins in certain positions:

A very involved example, but nevertheless demonstrates the mating potential of the knights.

5.They are better than bishops, as in, "they're" the contraction.  And... no they aren't generally. 

6."I've been able to win some losing games because of the knight" that says more about your opponent and your ability to observe that there's tactics than the merits of the piece itself.  I've pinned queens to kings and skewered kings with bishops before, but it's completely anecdotal.  Bishops as well as knights can turn the tide of a game depending on the position or blunder.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but

I'm dumber for having read this...

NimzoRoy wrote:

Nothing personal, but why do players rated under 1400 consider themselves qualified to draw important conclusions such as Kts being better or worse or = to Bishops (in ALL cases)?

In his classic "Basic Chess Endings" GM Fine states in 15 Rules for the Endgame:

11. Bishops are better than Kts in all except blocked pawn endings.

12. Two Bishops vs Bishop + Kt constitute a tangible advantage.

He is so right since I'm 1401 I can draw these conclusions :)

I do agree though

lol he isnt even rated 1200...

interesting idea...

... it is like asking a small woman and a large man, each what kind of hand gun is best...

Bishop can't develop the first move.  Knights can, so they can develop a tempo ahead.  This makes knights better.