Knight vs. Bishop? Neither rule over each other!

Woah, Ubik. 

You really went through all those pages of my activity? 

You must have hard a hard time tolerating them. 

No, I'm just saying. 

BTW the Terminator face is awesome. 

That's it?  How dull.

Nah. 

I complained because I was outraged at being muted and banned at Live Chess. If that hadn't happened, you'd have your comments now. 

StrategicPlay, your original post isn't totally right.  It is possible to mate with just a Knight or Bishop.

Examples: 

WKe6, WBc1, BKg8, BPe7, BPh7, White to move and mate in 3
(Answer: 1.Bh6 Kh8 2.Kf7 e5 3.Bg7#)

BNd7, BKe7, WKh7, WPh6, Black to move and mate in 3
(1...Kf7 2.Kh8 2.Nf8 3.h7 Ng6#)

If all that is on the board is the 2 kings and 1 minor piece, then yes, you can't force mate.  However, you can if there are other pieces on the board of the color being mated (i.e. additional Black pieces with White mating with just K and B.

Actually, the first example can actually come from a case of Black playing something like ...Qg8+ with the White Queen, say, on g3.  Problem is, it still wins for White even after the Queen Trade.

Also, if one side let's their clock run out, the rule states that it's a draw due to insufficient mating material vs time in the side with time left has Only a King, King and Bishop, King and Knight, or King and 2 Knights and the side that ran out of time has no pawns, UNLESS, a FORCED MATE can be demonstrated by the player with time left on the clock.  So if after 1.Bh6, Black stalled, by rule, Black still loses.  If Chess.com doesn't recognize this and rules it a draw, Chess.com has a bug!

I SAID DON'T BRING UP THE THREAD BACK!! IT IS ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF OLD WHEN I WAS A NEW KID ON THE BLOCK!

It was "one knight, or one bishop" and not AND. 

And I did know about the possibiity of a BNK vs K mate then. 

Uhm, the 2 examples I gave are one Knight OR one Bishop, NOT AND, FOOL!  Read the message!  In the 2 examples, White mates with only a K and B in the first one, Black mates with only K and N in the second one.

The topic was only about a single minor, not assisted by anything else. 

And yes, I was too lazy to read that second 75% of your post. 

Of course, the rest of your original post is more utter BS.  The Bishop and Knight are not of equal value.  They are both dubbed "3" in beginner books, but in reality, it depends on the position on the board.  In wide open positions with pawns on both sides of the board, a pair of Bishops is worth almost a Queen.  In a blocked position, Bishops are sh*t.

Any player that says "I prefer knights over bishops" or "I prefer bishops over knights" are bumbling idiots!

I prefer whichever minor piece better fits the current position!  One game that might be the Knight.  Another game that might be the Bishop.  If you are not objective about your minor pieces, you will continue to be a complete failure, and I recommend you take up Tic Tac Toe instead!

I choose the piece according to whether the position is closed or not, and whether I have suitable outposts or not for my pieces. 

My entire original post was BS. 

Uhm, whatever.  Anybody that reads the following paragraph, and I quote word for word:

"Both are equally important in a game. The only thing is, that you might find the Bishop more useful in the beginning, where you might try for quicker Checkmates, or threaten more pieces. The Knight does a good job in the beginning too, but is a great more useful towards the end, where you would be pleased to do some forks and gain piece advantages. Also, 'point to be noted', a Knight might have a whole lot of difficulty forking in the beginning, because of a crowd of the opponent army that might kick your Knight out."

would agree that it's utter cr*p.  The Knight is a great job more useful towards the end?  You also talk like the Knight is the only piece that executes forks.  You can't say that Bishops are better early and Knights late, or that Knight forks are only a concern later on, or that other pieces aren't just as capable of forking.  The whole thing is bopkis. 

What newbs under 1000 (that arent learning) dont realize is that one bishop CAN cover both colors indirectly because if you control on color complex, you will discoordinate your opponents pieces and allow other pieces to join in on the other, or simply your opponent may lack moves.

Knights do the same thing, but are not good for keeping it like this in the long run (except in most) blocked positions. They tend to hone out weaknesses more than causing miscoordination. Thats why the Queen and knight combo is so powerful, they can cover every square.

Its a bit of a waste of time really when <2000 players (like myself) make up their own strategic rules rather than just learning what theory says. 
Yes there are many positions where N are superior to B, but all in all, there are a bit more positions where B are superior to N. Otherwise, books would not speak about "bishop pair" as an advantage. 
You are right randommemory that often Q+N are better than Q+B, I have also read this. On the other hand I belive R+B are normally stronger than R+N.

"Any player that says "I prefer knights over bishops" or "I prefer bishops over knights" are bumbling idiots!"
Yeah they are probably just ignorant, on the other hand it COULD be that one player is particularily good, for his level, at spotting forking tactics and so he likes to play with N even in positions where they are not objectively better, no?

Also N are supposedly worth a little more in blitz than in long games. Sounds weird but the logic is even a strong player can miss a fork or a basic fork combination when in severe time pressure. 

How does the inability to spot a tactic make the knight more worthy?

The human brain for many people is unable to calculate and forsee the trickiness of the knight in shorter time controls. For me, I struggle with any endgame with knights for either side 

Exactly, how does it make the knight more worthy?

depends on the position

its just more useful in shorter time controls, its not worth more or less than it was at the start of the game. its more of a good piece to use in conjunction with time pressure.