Well...
The B is long range, while Ns are up-close-and-personal weapons.
Score: B 1 N 0
Ns cannot be blocked, unlike Bs.
Score: B 1 N 1
A N blocking a passed P is better than a B blocking one.
Score: B 1 N 2
Two Bs are more powerful than two Ns.
Score: B 2 N 2
Bs can only move to half the squares on a chessboard. Ns can move to any square.
Score: B 2 N 3
I perfer Bs, but Ns can also be good.
At my level I find bishops WAY better in the end game. Like I had a knight against 2 pawns and couldnt do anything once the king boxed me out. And I cant retreat while still covering the promotion squares unlike a bishop. A bit after the opening when there a bunch of "holes" that the knight can jump in to it becomes very strong. Overall, I would say bishop.
bishops
bishops
I think that asking "which is better in chess, bishop or knight?" is like asking "which is better in life, water or air?"...if you know what I mean.
Jaap likes a knight more, because of the surprises they cause. Once there is only one Bishop left, place the knight at the other color and he is safe until eternity
i like knight
knights and bishop are alll powerful
More specifically, the King bishop is better than the queen bishop as is the king knight stronger than the QN. A good trade is to give up your QB for your opponent's KB. Fischer was not just King of the Bishop but King of the King's Bishop.
depends on the position but IMO B=3.25 N=3.0
I perfer Bs, but Ns can also be good.
That's the remark of a weak player. As a weak player myself, I definitely agree with you, with respect to liking Bs on the grounds that I am not positionally competent enough to win as many games with a N when they are superior to have in that position. That being said, I think Ns and Bs are even, without a context. In cases of context, as you point out, Ns and Bs go back and forth, with probably more contexts favoring Bs. The overall piece assessment (I don't recal by who) of 3.3 for B and 3.2 for Ns, in terms of relative piece value, is probably spot on. I think Kasparov gave them both 3 points, which says a lot. Perhaps saying more is the fact that computers give Ns a higher value, because, I speculate, that humans at all levels miss N-moves.
I prefer whichever minor piece best fits my situation on the chessboard.
To have any bias what-so-ever in favor of any chess piece other than the King is absolute idiocy!
I've had all kinds of imbalances and won with all of them:
N vs B
B vs N
Q vs RBP
RB vs Q
RNNB vs QPPPP (Yes, I had this once OTB and won with the pieces)
BB vs RN
RN vs BB
Q vs BBN
and many others.
Piece bias (or preferences) is for chess retards!
You can't force a mate with two knights.
I can't defend too well against knights, therefore I try to eliminate them as soon as possible. I prefer them on offense than bishops.
knights R way more valuable as they cannot be blocked
Fischer was unstoppable with a pair of bishops. Reminds me of Clint Eastwood with spurs and a holster.
which pawnless endgame can you win
2B vs N
2N vs nothing
the fact that 2B wins against N but 2N can't even win against nothing is saying something
Ns just can't mate! Unless stalemate counts.
I know bishops are good in endgames and knights are good in closed games, and it all depends on the circumstances, but which do you think is better overall?