Is the knight worth more than the bishop?

Title please? Master Pieces?

You do own other chess books?

Since I have never even heard of Gareth Williams I believe I can safely dismiss the values he gives to the chess pieces, especially since it is at odds with what GREAT chess players and Champions have assigned to them.  I think you should do likewise Rich.

hmm I wonder what one of the greatest chess players ever, with perhaps the deepest most natural understanding of the game of any player, and an ability to take even tiny material advantages to endgames and win with total ease thinks about this...

"A Rook will be worth a Knight and two pawns, or a
Bishop and two pawns, but as said before, the Bishop
will be a better piece against the Rook."

But...but...he wrote a really really nice book on why the pieces look the way they do!  And he collects a lot of chess things...what more can evidence do we need of the greatness of this book other than it has the support of the great Rich to endorse it. 

All other books may be rubish.

LOL!! a kid's book with pictures! You come on here and argue with everyone (I've got 34 years in the game), and base your arguments on a kid's book, says it all. Go down the library and withdraw some chess books by respected authors (Ex-World Champions, Grand Masters etc.). Why spend thousands of hours on here and completely lose what little credibility you once had, all based on theories expounded in a kid's book (and not a very good kid's book either... try Fred Reinfeld... he wrote lots of beginners books that are easy to read, factually correct and have pictures).

p.s. I looked up Gareth Williams here's a review of his book Master Pieces (one of his better efforts by the look of it):

"But, if you expect a book about chess tactics and winning play you will be disappointed. This book is all about the chess pieces themselves and how they have developed since chess was first introduced about 600 CE. Lots of beautiful pictures of chess pieces and anecdotes about the famous who have used chess as a divertissement in their everyday business. Not a greatly profound book but, none the less, an interesting book to dip into for the odd 15 minutes browse."

Gareth Williams is primarily an author of chess history... are you sure that your piece value have not been drawn from a historically similar game? You still have not supplied the title of the book, I wonder why.

I'm almost afraid to ask the title of the other, more in depth book...

The bishop is Don Quixote; the knight, Sancho Panza.

Do we play old chess?

Then go away somewhere and play old chess over and over and over....

 However, old chess is NOT played here. Maybe you should find an old chess site to play on ? Anyone who has much experience in chess knows that the bishop is a little better than the N in most positions. There are some exceptions ofcourse. However, I believe the knight is better in blitz ! 

Look at this recent game I played on Live chess.  I think its very appropriate for this article.  I have a Knight and a Bishop in position to take my opponent's Queen.  It's not clear which move is better but they accomplish the same thing. In general, I use the rule of thumb that Bishops are better than the Knight.  Moves 20 - 21 clearly show that I am position to take my opponent's queen with either piece.  I believe that the reason people might think the knight is better is because most new chess players think the knight is harder to learn and master but in all reality the knight is very limited as to what it can do. At least more limited than the bishop.   I am not saying that the Knight should be overlooked because it can be a very damaging piece.  People's fear of the wrath of the knight is very much diverted from the devastion that the bishop is capable of.  Take a look! Notice the move list for both variations!!

maybe a bishop is better than knight in open positions and knight are better in closed positons. but you can open closed positions. you cant close open positions:) because of that i give the bishop a little extra but is about the same i guess

they r better or worse in certain situations a knight can "jump" over pieces and switch colors and blockade well but is realitivly slow. while the bishop is fast completely controls open games and is very good at holding back pawns but if anything is on the opposite color of the bishop it cant touch it they r equal so that whole knight is 2 1/2 points thing is wrong it depends on the game and how well u use them

 Carefull Reb or you'll have every good Welsh people after you for blastphame, for the great Gareth Williams was the king of the oval ball, a great rugby player & maybe one of the best off all times, hey hey!

Gareth Edwards!

i think so but thats just me

long standing debate/subject....it depends on positions, in open positions bishop is supierior, in closed position knight is superior...in the ending pieces n pawns left, if are only on one side of the board knight is superior (exceptions are: typical positions), if inthe ending play is going on both side of the board, then bishop is superior....other thing about this debate is: it depends on the style of player...great Bobby Fisher loves bishops, whereas another great player Yasser Seirawan (in his days he beat reigning champion Karpov in tournament play, he was the only great American after Bobby to do this n achieved other great feats...) Seirawan loves knights...

You telling me there's no great Gareth Williams that's played the great game for Wales?

Knights are versatile and being the only piece on the board that can jump over other pieces, i find them more useful