Even fischer said knights were worth 3 points and bishops were 3.5 points. Because most games simplify into an open endgame wherein Bishops are better. Anyone who knows anything about the evolution of the understanding of chess pieces and their values knows this. Also I don't understand this comparison of knight and Bishop as far as "Oh well this peice is better in this kind of position..." well DUH! That goes for any piece. Sometimes a Bishop is even better than a rook, but I see no debate about that. Because it's taken for granted that in certain positions values of pieces fluctuate and defluctuate. The point is that almost all GMs play for a double Bishop advantage-trying to trade their knights for Bishops. The reason is simple. They plan on going into an open endgame which happens statistically more than a closed endgame.
Bishops and Knights are equal
Even fischer said knights were worth 3 points and bishops were 3.5 points. Because most games simplify into an open endgame wherein Bishops are better. Anyone who knows anything about the evolution of the understanding of chess pieces and their values knows this.
I don't know when Fischer said that, but he is wrong. And if most positions simplify to open endgames, that is not the same as always.
On this thread I keep reading that because the bishop PAIR is better than any other minor piece combination, then that somehwo proves the LONE bishop is BETTER than the LONE knight. I see that a bishop PAIR has its advantages in terms of range, square control, and blockade diagonals.
But the LONE bishop vs the LONE knight, which is better? I don't think there is a good answer, however a LONE knight can get to any square. If a LONE bishop can't control the promotion square (for his side or his enemy's), then it is a complete non-factor.
An interesting question could be this: do you win more games
a) because you owned the bishop pair or
b) because your opponent allowed you to simplify to a good N vs bad B endgame 
I win with white because I am white,
and I win with black because I am beardogjones.
I win with white because I am white,
and I win with black because I am beardogjones.
Any relation to "ManBearPig" from South Park?
From "Rethinking the Chess pieces" by Soltis . In this table is reported the average mobility of the pieces obtained from a sample of matches (pawn =1) x number of moves.
Unfortunately the dynamic value of the king is not reported
MOBILITY OF THE PIECES MOVES .6-25 .26-45 .46-65 Queen 6.6 7 9.6 Rook 2.6 4.3 5.1 Bishop 3.1 3.5 3.8 Knight 3.3 3.3 3.3Notes
Well King is not a piece its The king. In endgames it is assumed by many to be of 4 pawns.
I was taught chess with the premise that the king was worth 5 points in the endgame.
I usually try to eliminate knights early, it is easier to predict a bishops move than a knight. Knights can be very effective early, if used right, usually with a bishop.
Even fischer said knights were worth 3 points and bishops were 3.5 points. Because most games simplify into an open endgame wherein Bishops are better. Anyone who knows anything about the evolution of the understanding of chess pieces and their values knows this. Also I don't understand this comparison of knight and Bishop as far as "Oh well this peice is better in this kind of position..." well DUH! That goes for any piece. Sometimes a Bishop is even better than a rook, but I see no debate about that. Because it's taken for granted that in certain positions values of pieces fluctuate and defluctuate. The point is that almost all GMs play for a double Bishop advantage-trying to trade their knights for Bishops. The reason is simple. They plan on going into an open endgame which happens statistically more than a closed endgame.
The reason people make a bigger deal of bishop v knight is because their value is so close that slight pawn position difference can make one stronger than the other much easier than rook vs bishop. And rook vs a minor piece is usually a temporary tactical thing, where bishop vs knight can be a more permanent pawn structure thing.
I usually try to eliminate knights early, it is easier to predict a bishops move than a knight. Knights can be very effective early, if used right, usually with a bishop.
That's it, those knights are unpredictable, I try to eliminate them asap, usually sacrifice my own to do so - don't know if that's right, I'm a novice and not very adept with using the knight.
I would say Knights are more annoying with all those forks but Bishops are better in endgame. Refer to post #22
It's not the same. Always means always, it doesn't matter what subjective clause you follow it with.
One should always avoid absolutes.
True. But My sentence means that "Bishops slightly better than knights" is always on average (not on certain cases where knights are better).
lol...looks like we have us another Nathan Thurm Award nominee ("It's him, right?"):
40% of the time I win every time.
What I said is true, is true in all cases, except in the cases where it isnt true.
By the way, knight >> bishop in the top 2 games posted in Naka's tournament (Giri v Ivanchuk, Naka v that other dudemar) on the home page. In the 3rd game posted, both sides' bishops were off the board before both knights.
Bishop + Bishop = 7 points! Knight + Knight = 6 points! Based on the standard of Bishop equals 3 and 1/2 point. Whereas Knight equals 3 points! Even in Society; the Bishop holds rank over the Knight!
In society the bishops like to get up close behind the knights. Real close.
1. On Average bishops are always slightly better.(specially with bishop pair)
This guy just doesn't get that "always" and "on average" are incompatible when talking about the same thing. It's beyond him.