bestkiju wrote:
Both knight and Bishop has same point(3) but some people think knight or bishop is better that each other, why?
Read 50 other threads asking the same question:
https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=knight+or+bishop
Is knight useful or is Bishop more useful?
Sort:
Because some players sacrifice their knights for Bishops or Bishops for knights..
Most masters generally prefer the bishop over the knight. In a closed position, the knights may be better able to navigate around obstacles, but as the game goes on and pieces/pawns are exchanged, the bishop's ability to act at a distance and to influence both wings becomes decisive in the endgame.
Feb 2, 2016
0
#5
Latest thinking is that Knight = Bishop = 3.25 pawns (not 3)
See http://www.chessfornovices.com/chesspiecevalues.html
Also, having the 2 bishops is worth a 0.5 pawn "bonus"
Feb 2, 2016
0
#6
re: wilford
Not exactly. Strong players give extra value to the bishop pair. Bishop or knight in the endgame it just depends.
But even so, we all know even world champions will give up the bishop pair as early as move 5 in certain openings. It's much too subtle a consideration for new players.
It's mostly like asking:
"I'm building a house and I want to know which is more useful, a hammer or saw?"
It's a nonsense question.
Feb 2, 2016
0
#7
bestkiju wrote:
but some people think knight or bishop is better that each other, why?
Only new players.
In specific positions though, it's true some minor pieces are better than others. In general, pieces that influence many squares, and important squares (like in the center or near a king or weakness) and pieces that are mobile (not blocked in by their own pieces for example) are valued more. In some cases a knight or a bishop will be worth more than a rook.
Even then, it can be good to trade away a strong piece for a different advantage. Like opening up their king to attack.
Both knight and Bishop has same point(3) but some people think knight or bishop is better that each other, why?