Knight Vs Bishop

Knight and Bishop,Which chess piece is more stronger and explain why?

The Knight is more superior. This is because a knight's ability to jump means it can navigate a clustered board more easily. ... Conversely, the knight is superior to the bishop in closed positions, on the one hand because the pawns are in the bishop's way, and on the other hand because the pawns form points of support for the knight. (Extracted from Wiki)

Dies ist, weil die Fähigkeit eines Ritters zu springen bedeutet, dass es ein gruppiertes Brett leichter navigieren kann. ... Umgekehrt ist der Ritter dem Bischof in geschlossenen Positionen überlegen, zum einen, weil die Bauern in der Bischofsart sind, und andererseits, weil die Schachfiguren Stützpunkte für den Ritter bilden. (Aus Wiki extrahiert)

I'm not sure which is better but the knight is always complaining about how the bishop is always asking the same old question.

It's almost unheard of for any well-played game of chess to end in King and two Bishops against a bare King, though, so this theoretical possibility is hardly a practical one - especially as you can bet that most games in which this would arise would be between players who can't work out how to make with KBB anyway.

As has been said in countless books and essays over the years, in some situations the Knight is better, in some the Bishop, and their compensating strengths and weaknesses mean that for most practical purposes they could be regarded as equal.

I opened such forum a month ago, and most people said that they are equal. There was the same amount of votes for the knight, as for the bishop.

 

IN CLOSED POSITION,THE KNIGHT CAN MANOEUVER AND DIMINISH AND CRUSH AND SQUEEZE ANY MERE BISHOP.

In some positions, 1 pawn may be stronger than all other pieces put together.  So I don't think this question really has an answer, really depends on the position!

 

 

The easy "non-answer" - in that it's true, but it's unsatisfying - is that the better piece is the one that gives you the checkmate, or that it depends entirely on the position.  Very true, but as I said, an unsatisfying answer.  Personally, I prefer bishops over knights - mostly because of the long-range attacking capability.  occasionally, you can sneak a victory by the removal of objects in the way, which leaves a king open to a long-range attack.  Some players can't see a bishop squirreled away on b2, for example.  To me, removing those attacks for my opponent by trading my knights for his/her bishops still gives me that capability while removing theirs.  If it comes down to an endgame, a bishop has the mobility that a knight doesn't, and works quickly, supporting pawns from a distance, etc.  BUT, the Knight's tricky moves and ability to cover more exits and smother really are a boon. I would suggest the ultimate answer for this quandry lies in asking yourself the question, "What would you rather play against?"  If you would rather face someone's bishops than their knights, I would say your style of play lends towards the use of knights, and the knight would be more valuable to you - and the stronger piece in your arsenal.  How to find out that value in a game?  Offer a trade.  Any accepted trade tells you a lot of your opponent and where they place value.

Bishops are slightly stronger overall:

- Bishop pair acts like a dual diagonal steamroller

- Bishops are faster and have better range, crossing the entire board in one move; the knights superiority in closed positions is due to nullifying this advantage

- A centralized bishop standing alone controls 13 squares, a knight controls 8

 

Consider the following endgame:

 

Note how the bishop in this position does so many things at once:

- Dominates the knight's ability to move

- Covers the a pawn's queening square

- Defends white's kingside pawn chain

- Defends white's b pawn while being supported by it (queens and bishops share this mutual defender relationship with pawns...knights and rooks do not)

- Forces black to use extra moves to centralize their king 

The knight's advantages:

- Better mobility in closed positions

- Can reach every square on the board (this knight advantage is nullified by having a bishop pair, which is one reason why a bishop pair is stronger than the sum of its parts)

You guys, at least those of you legitimately 1500 or more, realize how ridiculous it is to say a B or N is unconditionally better or overall better, right?

There are so many special cases where one is better than the other that you have to assess the position.  If you are in an endgame that's wide-open and there are pawns scattered across the board, you're likely to prefer a Bishop to a Knight. On the other hand, in a closed situation where that pawns are tangled together you may prefer a Knight to a Bishop, especially if you can keep your pawns off his square color.

Then there's the rule of thumb in the middlegame that is often true: a N on ranks 1-3 is inferior to a B, a N on rank 4 is as good as a B, a N on rank 5 is better than a B, a N on rank 6 is devastating, a N on ranks 7-8 are weaker than on  6.

Of course, it all depends on the total position on the board and on the plan you have.

Once you have eliminated the considerations of the particular position, you can make the argument that a bishop is objectively better, no differently than you can say that a rook is objectively better than a knight.  Engine analysis proves this out.  The only reason it's such a question mark is that the objectively better value of the bishop is so much closer to a knight's value than a rook or queen, and it is only in the recent past of chess history that the difference has been measurable.  For centuries, the simplified/approximated 3pt values have held sway.

Of course you cannot say that any piece is unconditionally better than another...a pawn can be better than a queen in a given situation, but nobody is going to argue that this makes the pieces equal in value overall.  If you changed the rules of chess to disallow pawn promotion to queens or rooks, you would find that the rule of thumb would quickly become "promote to a bishop unless you have a specific reason to promote to a knight".  Bishops are objectively stronger.

Stockfish valuations for pieces (2015):

• Pawn Midgame   = 198,   Pawn Endgame   = 258
• Knight Midgame = 817,   Knight Endgame = 846
• Bishop Midgame = 836,   Bishop Endgame = 857
• Rook Midgame   = 1270,  Rook Endgame   = 1281
• Queen Midgame  = 2521,  Queen Endgame  = 2558

Here's an interesting article in Russian that does regression analysis of world champions to determine their "personal" piece values as borne out by their play:

https://habrahabr.ru/post/254753/

I get jacked up more by Knight forks than by Bishop pins.  

Double bishop > Double knight

 

Yet, again, it depends...

the night is actually stronger for middle games but not for end games

Except that it's not:

 

Stockfish valuations for pieces (2015):

• Pawn Midgame   = 198,   Pawn Endgame   = 258
• Knight Midgame = 817,   Knight Endgame = 846
• Bishop Midgame = 836,   Bishop Endgame = 857
• Rook Midgame   = 1270,  Rook Endgame   = 1281
• Queen Midgame  = 2521,  Queen Endgame  = 2558

In an endgame with a race to queen pawns, with a B vs N , The bishop will be superior. The B will even sac itself at the queening square and then promote its own. The knight many times has trouble getting to the opponent's promotion square in time.

There's a Russian proverb that goes,

"The knight hops on short legs."

*Not proverb, more like just a chess saying.

Closed-knight

open-bishop