This is why I'd generally rather face a bishop in the endgame than a knight. It's just so complex to defend against a knight and against a bishop you have a clear objective of getting your pawns onto the opposite color squares.
The problem lies in what is called argument by specific cases. In chess this is often used to demonstrate the value of pieces in various situations. In any individual game there are so many factors that values are constantly changing.
Throughout the history of chess to the present moment bishops and knights have been freely exchanged at all stages of the game. Not so with minor pieces and rooks, when the advantage of the exchange pointed out.
The more advanced the player the more he sees these small differences that are invisible to lesser players. At club level the argument is pointless, there are far too many other problems in the game that are much more important.
Knights are always better than bishops!!!
Just because two bishops are 7, it doesn't mean that one bishop = 7/2 = 3.5.
I think a big reason that two bishops are better than two knights is because with bishops there is no redundancy, but with knights there is. I wonder If there value would start to even out the more bishops vs. knights there were. would 6 bishops still be better than 6 knights?
Even fischer said knights were worth 3 points and bishops were 3.5 points.
I very much doubt this and would like to see a citation.
Who cares about stats of GrandMaster games. Are you guys GM's or playing GMs? -1
The smart money is on mastering knights to the highest degree & they pwning weak players who are overeager to "accquire the two bishops". IM Mark Diesen has a good couple of videos on chess.fm on the power of knights even in open positions when they are well-placed. -2
1 - Those who take chess seriously.
2 - Just don't make sense. A good player always uses his knowledge to use a piece efficiently always. Compare good vs good. A weak player who doesnot know the power of two bishops can't do anything either with knights. All World chess champs were good players of two bishops whether its Lasker, Fischer or Kasparov. Two bishop pair is always a positional plus. Read here
Stats are misleading. You can't play by stats.
Fischer liked the Ruy Lopez exchange.
It depends on the position. That is the most natural answer by any chess player.
No, actually it always depends on the position!
Here are my thoughts on Bishop vs Knight,
We know that they are both worth around 3 pawns each, but it also depends on the positional situation.
Knights are considered a little stronger in closed games, where the pawn structure is locked down, which can cause bishops to be trapped in by their own pieces.
Also on the contrary, bishops can be slightly stronger than knights during an open game, where the pawn structure is open giving the bishops diagonals to run down.
In the endgame it is considered better if you have a bishop rather than a knight, as they can traverse the board quickly to attack/defend. During an endgame the board will be relatively empty, so bishops will be in their element.
Having said that, there is the chance that your opponents pawns might be on the opposite colour square as your bishop. Giving your bishop no targets to attack, but allowing your bishop a blockade of the opposite colour square which can be decisive.
Anaylse the board before deciding to make a knight - bishop trade off, as you could be giving up an advantage, depending on the positioning of the pieces.
It really depends on what you're trying to achieve, knights and bishops are two very different pieces (apart from the fact they're both worth three points). The knight is normally used to attack or fork the more valuable pieces (including the king) and is the only piece in the entire game that can jump over other pieces while the bishop is used to control more squares, pin, skewer or sometimes even fork other pieces and is very useful when it comes to checkmating the opponent (like protecting the queen in the four move checkmate).
However, it's true that knights are good at the beginning and that bishops are good at the endgame but I heard somewhere that both of these pieces are worth 3.5 points in the initial moves of a game, but it does make sense as they are very useful in the opening for both offense and defense.
I played a game out Fritz vs. Fritz (white had two knights, black two bishops), ended in a draw.
it does depend on position but who can look 5-8 moves ahead. one advantage knights have is they can jump over pieces but they can get hung up very easy.
Every piece has a special property.
True. For example, my a pawn can control magnetic fields.
And a queen is useless chasing a king with no backup, I used to always fear when the queen got too close to my king, now it doesn't bother me....much.
Even the psychological properties of the pieces (e.g. I lose to bishops because they look like pawns) is relative too... lol you guys.
Congrats on a poor and recurring topic lasting so long. Congrats isn't the right word... I need something more depressing... like condolences lol.
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.
In this case both depend on other pieces. If there are pawns on both sides of the board then Bishops are better as Bishop can attack simultaneously but knights cant. If there are pawns on one side then Knights are better as they are better in attacking fix weakness. A lone bishop can trap a knight but a lone knight can't trap a bishop. For knight to trap it needs help of pawns and that too of same color as that of the bishop. A possesor of bishop never keeps pawns on the same color as that of bishop. In knight endings a, h, pawns sre better. But if you see most openings a, h pawns are positionaly or tactically sacked hence making the endgame unfavorable for knights.
Now think of yourself of what is better slightly.
At least you seem to know that much.
Well, it still depends. Although in endgames these statements would be more accurate.
A general principal but very far from an absolute one. Sometimes GMs rush to put their pawns on the same color (although I admit I don't always understand it myself). Restriction seems to be one of the simpler explanations.
Again a general idea that's not always true and has little to do with their general value.
Quite simply a laughable statement.
no they arent