Bishops and Knights are equal

Bishop is stronger than knight, generally. That's it.

---

I brought this up once with my grampa.

He started to tell me that the difference between bishops and knights is similar to the difference between boxers and briefs.

"So what do you wear, grampa?"

" 'Depends."

Statistics may simply reflect fashion, e.g. there are disproportionate openings played that lead to positions where bishops are preferable.  But Capa liked the QN over QB and perhaps he simply didn't play enough games to skew statistics in favor of the knight.  The same logic can be applied to closed games vs open games...people may think closed games is the way to go for the elite players, but then a new genius super-GM emerges and dominates with open games and we come full circle.  

I think Chernev sums up this thread best:

The bishop is better than the knight, except when Capablanca has the knight.   

Capablanca: TheUltimateChampion for real.

The best answer given here was clearly "it depends". This is even true for the bishop pair which on average is worth an additional half pawn, but is worth less than the pair of knights in closed positions. Even in the endgame, the bishop is not always superior (i.e. if all pawns are on one side of the board).

Bishops might be better historically - but that might all change:

kasparov favored the bishops - but recently it has been revealed  that he

was weak in the middlegame...

Bishops are better in my opinion. They fork, pin, and skewer, and usually have more squares to run into. Knights can only fork.

---

Karpov must be kicking himself. Why didn't anyone tell me?

TheUltimateChampion wrote: dannyhume wrote: A bishop may control more squares than a knight, but those squares are all of the same color and the said bishop has no access to 32 of the remaining squares. - 1 If the king is worth 4 pawns in the endgame (more than either of the minor pieces) and is able to simply sidestep the squares the lone enemy bishop can control, then couldn't a king and knight coordinate with each other more effectively to defend their own pawns to allow 1 of them to advance, such that the blockading bishop would eventually be forced to sacrifice itself to prevent enemy pawn promotion?  -2 I am aware that the king only moves 1 square at a time, and the knight likewise takes a hwile to get from 1 side of the board to the other, but the point is that the enemy bishop may only be able to dance around a diagonal until the inevitable happens.  I am simply wondering out loud.   -3 1-  A knight placed on central black square controls only 8 white squares where as a W bishop 15 white squares.  So think again. 2- That is a relative case. Which king is better? What piece is better depends on position of other pieces and pawns. Kings mobility makes it better than the other king. Your thought is partially  correct in this case as a bishop can trap a knight but not vice versa (which is too relative as it depends on pawns placements) .Bishop and pawn vs Knight is draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently close.The defending king can occupy a square in front of the pawn of opposite color  as the bishop cannot be driven away. Similarly in Knight and pawn vs Bishop its draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn or sufficiently near.The bishop is kept on diagonal that the pawn must cross and knight cannot both block the bishop and drive the defending king away. When considering the piece values King is most of the time not considered as its relative. You can have a reading here.  3- It seems  you have no Idea about the basic endgames. If you have a database of (Top GM) human games then you can go and research. And you will find in Bishop vs Knight with pawns, side having bishops win ~ 60% of the time in middlegame and endgames as far as current chess theory is concerned. As far as your dancing comment is concerned , a bishop can control on 2 flanks simultaneously whil a knight is bind to 1 side at a time as knight is a poor defender. So bishop just waits for the knight dancing from one side to another to attack the other side. Ruben Fine and Benko in his endgame book give these conclusions :- In general the bishop is better than the knight. When there is a material advantage, the difference between the bishop and knight is not very important. However, the bishop usually wins more easily than the knight. If the material is even, the position should be drawn. However, the bishop can exploit positional advantages more efficiently. When most of the pawns are on the same color as the bishop (i.e. a bad bishop), the knight is better. So don't wonder loud, rather read good endgame books of Fine and Mark Dvoretsky and find yourself. Bishop vs Knights argument is a long battle since chess but its worthless if you dont consider it when as its a relative term. Technically both are same but dynamism wise bishops are slightly better. I like TheUltimateChampions post. Their value is relative to many variables and must be understood and quantified per case.

Sorry about my previous jumbled post. I am learning how to use a forum lol. My contribution to TheUltimateChampions reply was. I like TheUltimateChampions post. Their value is relative to many variables and must be understood and quantified per case.

The question of asking which is better is a trick question whose answer depends on the situation of some particular game. Jeremy Silman devotes an entire chapter to discussing the imbalances present between Knights and Bishops in his book The Amateur's Mind. I highly recommend it.

Anyway, although the value for the pieces flucuates as the game progresses, 2 things are certain...

1. A King vs. King + 2 Opposite-colored Bishops Endgame is a Win

2. A King vs. King + 2 Knights is a draw

So, in an open-board endgame, I value Bishops more because of their mating potential.

The strange thing is that King vs. King + Bishop + Knight is also a win, but a very complicated one! Check it for a deeper understanding of endgames.

In addition, I don't think GM's are too quick to say that Knights and Bishops are truly equal, because if they were, you would many, many more games involving the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation. However, every opening book that I've looked at has said that Black would have an advantage for some of the sharper lines because they have the bishop pair. Explore this opening so see what I mean.

k versus B+NT+K is not trivial - but it is not "very complicated" either.

---

There are many situations where the knight is better

---

 That explains why he slaughtered people in the opening.

---

And we'll be back in the 3rd half of our show . . . 

all pieces were originally created equal and free, its just the rules of chess

that seem to constrain them.

Which are you, Click or Clack?

Clunk.  The missing 3rd brother.

---

You never used the word "dynamics" in your post #13.  You did, however, include the equally stupid comment "a owner of two bishops never allows closed positions".