Is the knight worth more than the bishop?

Never be racist, for we are all =!

THE NIGHT IS BETTER BECAUSE IT CAN MAKE FORKS AND GET REALLY GOOD PIECES WHEN YOU NEED THEM  

When young Karpov was playing with one GM, who was been famous by playing well with his Knights, - Karpov exchange early both of his Bishops for that GM's Knights!

And Karpov Won, of course! Psychology on Action!

 M. Chigorin was well known addicted by playing his Virtuoso Knights!

 A. Rubinstein was been Best on his Rooks Endings!

G.Marotsi played some best Queen Endings!

It's not the piece that is good or bad. It is the player who decides to use it.

It really comes down to the playing position at hand!

Knights lose value as the game goes on, the king grows stronger as the game goes on. The bishop depends on the position.

it depends on who you're playing. some people use their knights early on and are deadly with them. but ive found when i play, the one bishop is really useful, and the other is practically useless. the thing bishops have going for them is they cooperated better with the queen. knights however are far more effective in pairs.

   bishops do not cooperate(coordinate...) better with queens; knights are more sync'ed with queens; as bishops and queens movement block each other.

You're speaking out of; experience? Or out of superficial logic? 

Depends on the nature of the game; bishops work better when:

1. It's a open game

2. They have alot of targets on the other side; 

That has already been said though...

As has been said, every pieces value changes depending on the position, e.g. a rook is worth a lot more to you on an open file than stuck on a8. However, one grandmaster has said (I dont know which) that in the old system of Queen = 9, Pawn = 1, Rook = 5, bishops are around 3.25 and knights about 3.1, but as people have said above, it all depends on the position.

Rook is more than 4!

 The King is about 4!

Rich your book is just plain wrong.  A rook is worth a piece and 2 pawns.  It's also at best pointless and at worst counter-productive to give the bishop as 3.2.  You aren't a computer, and you will never have to decide to trade 5 bishops for the extra .2 to mean anything.  However it is very often correct to trade a bishop for a knight and your 3.2 would always prevent you from making this trade. 

I have the book and it says knights are 1. You know, the book.

Rich, do yourself an enormous favour (and all of us that are sick and tired of hearing you quote the crap contained within) and burn that book, and if you can, shoot the ashes into space, it's the only way to be sure.

p.s. Next time you acquire a chess book, ensure it was written by a chess player not locked away in a sanatorium.

Amen to that.

I say you take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure...

he mostly comes out at night.  mostly. 

The King in the End is close to Rook! 4.5-5!

 Most Bishops are better than the Knights! Pray and play??

From rich:

not according to the book. Rook is 4; it's 5 on this site I have no idea why. The King is about 2.5.

Thats amazing.  Truly something else.  This suggests that you have one book on chess and somehow managed to select a book that got it wrong.  I can't help but wonder if this book says the best way to improve your game is to always play players that are nowhere near your current rating.

What is the title of this book, the name of the author and the print date? Just interested because this fabled book is at odds with the whole chess establishment, all the talented players who have played the game in the last hundred years, modern engines and common sense itself.

p.s. How did you get a rating over 1500 when you obviously do not even have a grasp of the fundamentals? Every time you comment, you assure each and every one of us that you really are that stupid. Quit while you're behind.

p.p.s. What analysis have you subject this wonderful book to? Your deep, penetrating intellect? PMSL!!

Is the name of the Book is: " The Rich Chess Book"?