A will yas leave poor owl rich ( Norma ) alone! 
Is the knight worth more than the bishop?
Sort:
thegab03 wrote:
Reb wrote:
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.
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!
Are you telling me a rugby player wrote a book on chess ?! 
It has already been pointed out that 2 bishops can force checkmate and the 2 knights cannot. Take an empty chessboard and take a knight and put it anywhere you like on the board. The maximum number of squares a knight can move to is 8 and the minimum 2 . Do the same with the bishop and the max is 13 and minimum 7. A bishops long range movement allows it to both attack one side of the board while defending a different part of the board, like holding up a passed pawn. A knight cannot do this, the owner of the knight must decide whether to use the knight for attack on one side or defending on another. I really dont understand why people cannot see the superiority of the bishop....in MOST ( not all) positions.
It's foolish to compare such a diverse piece as the night to the bishop. It's like debating if pizza is better than cake. You shouldn't sacrifice your knight simply to take out a bishop. You should always have a bigger purpose, whether your goal is to take tension off a square (especially in the early game when players are vying for the e4,5 and d4,5 squares) or maybe you're looking to break a pawn line. In any case, I prefer to let a game develop before I choose favorites. It sucks to find yourself in a position where you could seriously use a knight, only to realize you sacrificed it earlier.
same
They are both worth the same, but 2 bishops or 2 knights are both better than a bishop and a knight.
There will be a steel-cage pay-per-view match to decide this issue. Check your local paper for broadcast dates.
The piece that the position needs is the best! How about that idea for such a subjective question? This is the one question that keeps popping up like a zombie throughout chess history.
A bishop is slightly better than a knight in bishop vs knight endgames because of its greater mobility. Also, 2 bishops and a king can mate andd 2 knights and a king cannot (unless your opponent epic fails and walks into it).
In general though they each have benefits in certain situations. For instance if all of my pawns are on the white squares and i can use my white square bishop to take out a knight i probably will because chances are it is or will become a "bad" bishop. A "bad" bishop is worth less than a knight.
In the point system they are both worth 3. I have a personal preferance towards my bishops just because I find it easier to see a mating net with them. The knights are just harder to visualize for me.
In the end ill give the bishop the slight edge.
- Pawns are the basic units of chess, and are given a value of 1. All other pieces are valued in terms of how many pawns they are worth.
- The minor pieces, bishops and knights, are each considered to be worth about 3 pawns. Some books give bishops a slightly higher value than knights, such as 3.25.
- Rooks are worth about 5 pawns. This makes them worth slightly less than two minor pieces.
- Queens are worth approximately 9 pawns. A queen is worth nearly as much as two rooks.
You'll notice one piece is missing from our list: the king. The king can never be exchanged, and losing your king means the game is immediately over. Thus, the king's value is infinite -- no cost is too high to avoid checkmate.
5 is not nearly 6, or 6.25. 9 is not nearly as much as 10. Also, the King's attacking power has been generally agreed to be about 4.
Dec 28, 2008
0
#74
Honestly guys, please transfer this to the thread I have started a while back:
Knight vs Bishop summary(/essay)
check it out, it is quite comprehensive and has had many insightful responses. I think you'll get a much better feel for the debate, as the issue is not so black and white. Nor is it as simple as saying" best piece for the situation". I mean, how to you assess the situation, and what it calls for. Closed vs. Open, is part of it, but certainly not an indepth enough answer to such a classically debated issue!!
Furthermore, as Saccadic was pointing out, those 'small' point differences as extremely relevant, and (as mentioned in the aforementioned forum topic here at chess.com) are explored in depth in a great article by GM Kauffman. It is references in my post: Knight vs Bishop summary(/essay).
Just read a Books of Yuriy Averbax about real Bishop Vs Knight fighting!
I play more effectively with knights, especially in the endgame, which seems to outweigh any abstract discussion of the topic.
I predict that rich has learned nothing.