statistically - the bishop.. i prefer the knight..
knight vs bishop
Sort:
knights in a closed games, and bishops open games
If you want to find out, go to the Bishop vs. Knight vote chess game. 
rich wrote:
Two Bishops are meant to be stronger than two Knights in just about every position.
any rub a totally closed position will make the 2 bishops look like tall pawns and the knights , 2 murderers
i'd rather have one knight then one bishop.
i'd rather have two bishops then two knights.
Knights are limited in their power. They do have positions where they are worth even more then a rook but that is dynamic. You need to decide the game in that window where your knights have superiority because the game will eventually open up, favoring the bishops.
Two more things that devalues two knights in the endgame is that two knights cannot force checkmate, where as N+B and B+B can and also knights have trouble keeping up with pawn action on two sides of the board. In my oppinion the knight is also an easier target for domination in the endgame when it lands on a bad edge square.
One plus on the other hand is that it is harder to create light or dark square blockades because knights cover both colors compared to one bishop. Two bishops are always a huge plus in the endgame.
RainbowRising wrote:
A King does 8. Does that mean it is as strong as a Knight?
It can be.
rich wrote:
No people spell it colors. No the King isn't quite as good.
American english: Color, armor etc
Brittish english: Colour, armour etc
You are from Britain right?
And the king is approximately as powerful as a knight in the endgame.
Hi guys,
I think a knight is stronger during the opening and mid-game and I think the bishop is better in the end game.
Watch your backrank.
jchurch5566 wrote:
Hi guys,
I think a knight is stronger during the opening and mid-game and I think the bishop is better in the end game.
Watch your backrank.
This is something a base generalisation. If you don't think so, look at this position, reached in Henneberger-Nimzowitsch 1931
It is clear that the knight is far stronger than the bishop, with access to e4, d5, and the ability to calmly hop all over the board unmolested by the terrible white bishop, which can easily be tied to defending c3 and g3 by a knight on e4.
Not to say that knights always beat bishops of course, but I'm just backing up the statement that frankly, position is important when evaluating the minor piece.
Open position by bishops and close position by knights
A player who promotes a pawn will almost always choose a queen, sometimes a rook. However, there are times when a knight is the best choice. No one ever selects a bishop!
May 20, 2009
0
#14
Diabeditor wrote:
A player who promotes a pawn will almost always choose a queen, sometimes a rook. However, there are times when a knight is the best choice. No one ever selects a bishop!
I don't know if you're trying to say this is evidence that a knight is stronger than a bishop or just tossing it out there fun. Obviosuly you would rarely choose a bishop (maybe never?) because the queen has the exact same movement thus making the bishop redundant. It would take an interesting stalemating position I guess for the bishop to have any use. The knight moves differently than the queen, giving rise to useful promotion scenarios, but not proving its stronger than the bishop.
As shown the value of a Knight versus a Bishop depends on the position and also the state of the game (ie opening, middlegame, endgame)--There is a very good book written on this subject Bishop v Knight the verdict by Steve Mayer
May 20, 2009
0
#16
Well yes and no.
Yes in that obviously the stronger piece depends on how you define strength. (and it always depends on the actual position) A knight is generally a better endgame compliment to the queen, I'll grant that.
No in the sense that unless you define promotion use as a major factor in the strenght of a piece, the fact that you're more likely to promote a knight than a bishop is meaningless. For example, imagine you could not promote to a queen. In this scenario, there would be many situations where you would promote to a bishop. So the promotion arguement proves that a queen is strogner than a bishop, it doesn't prove a knight is stronger than a bishop.
Come to think of it, I know of another game by nimzowitsch where he dominates an open board with a pair of knights despite his opponent's bishop pair! But I can't remember anything else about the game, so if anyone knows of that instance, I would be grateful if they could tell me who he played and when.
In any case, instances like the one described are pretty rare, and in an open position, I would recommend keeping hold of those bishops.
Traditionally, in the point-values estimate for strength of pieces, knights and bishops are both 3. But grandmasters refine this to say bishops are 3 1/3 or even 3 1/2. You can look it up.
May 21, 2009
0
#19
Since it came up before, there actually are some positions where promoting to a bishop is best, rare as it is.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004732
which piece have more power....? knight or bishop....