The question was for the first 20 moves.
I think the knights are slightly better early because there are more pawns on
the board. For the second 20 moves the bishops are slightly better as the
pawns clear out.
However, in chess there really are few absolutes, as it is an abstract art.
Knight vs Bishop
Sort:
I think it really varies from player to player. Some are more confident with
one than the other. Also, in the first 20 moves it would matter which opening.
It completely matters on the position but I would say that bishops are generally better than knights. In the endgame, bishops can sweep across the board in 1 move while it is often fatal for a knight to be far away from the action, especially with pawns on the board. A bishop has an easier time sac'ing itself for a pawn or 2 than a knight.
But this of course all changes when the bishop is a bad one lol...
Do you think that it is good to play the following sequence of moves in the beginning of the game.
Even limiting it to the first 20 moves, there are still too many different things that can happen so the answer is the same as always -- that it just depends on the specific position. Your best pieces are always the ones that are doing the most for you anyway, regardless of what piece it is, so just keep your pieces active and strongly posted and you wont have to worry about stuff like this.
May 13, 2010
0
#7
manav010 wrote:
Do you think that it is good to play the following sequence of moves in the beginning of the game.
It's not exactly an opening-phase situation, now is it? In such a situation it would anyway be bad to trade since you're down on material. If you're referring to an opening situation where you pin a knight to the king or queen, there's not a definite answer. It just depends.
I seem to recall that Capablanca considered Q+N better than Q+B, but I don't know if there's been any statistical analysis of that.
It's hard to say which would be more effective in the first 20 moves. Depends on the position on the board. Also the quality of the opponent.
I've got to say I prefer 2 bishops in the end game, they're like snipers. Lots of scope. Knights are a little more complex and don't have as much scope. Still effective though.
I've heard the theory that Q+N is better than Q+B because the queen and bishop
travel the same squares on the diagonals while the knight hops to squares the
queen doesn't.
"He discovered the Bishop pair is worth roughly half a pawn, but there is no difference between 2Bs v B+N and 2Bs v 2Ns, and there is no advantage in B+N v 2Ns."
If two Bs are equivalent to B+N or 2Ns, how can a B pair be worth half a pawn?
MyCows, you're misreading it a little.
2Bs is better than B+N by the same mount 2Bs is better than 2Ns.
There is no difference between
1) 2Bs vs. B+N
compared to
2) 2Bs vs. 2Ns
Loomis:
Thanks. I knew I should have had a second cup of coffee before posting.
Bishops are definitely better in endgames, and i can state this without needing any scientific information, because:
-A bishop and pawn can form a chain that can be a constant threat if the pawn is advanced
-A bishop can cover more squares than a knight on maximum
-A bishop pair can mate, while a knight pair cannot.
Open endgames happen far more than closed endgames, because of simplification, therefore bishops are generally better in engames.
As for openings, i believe knights have a slight advantage, though not by a margin as big as the bishop in an endgame. This is because knights can take control of indirectly adjacent squares and prevent larger pieces (eg.queens) from doing serious damage.
Conclusively, if your opponent wants to trade their knight for your bishop, decline (using common sense).
@ easypeezy
Knights can be better in endgames where the action is confined to one area such as one side of the board. While bishops are more mobile, in these situations such as with pawns only on one side, it's maneuverability counts less while the knight ability to hit both color squares counts more.
Also placing pawns on the same color as your bishop in endgames is a novice's favorite way to feel safe but is also the fastest way to play into a passive position which is often a technical loss. On the surface this is obvious as your chessmen have abandon half the board (the other color).
A good example is with knight vs bishop with pawns locked on same color as your bishop you're down very badly and the knight may even be better.
Another example, the only real fortresses in the exchange down endgame of bishop vs rook involves keeping your last few pawns on the opposite color of your bishop.
This also counts for most bishop vs bishop endgames where if you can force the enemy pawns onto the same color as their bishop you're making progress.
So as always with these recurring topics, the answer is it simply depends on the specific position.
Jul 7, 2010
0
#17
Bishops are definitely better in endgames, and i can state this without needing any scientific information, because:
Conclusively, if your opponent wants to trade their knight for your bishop, decline (using common sense).
I think it unwise to generalize something like this.
It's never a good idea thinking in terms of absolutes ... there are exceptions for everything.
Good counter-points, orangehonda.
I remember starting out I was told the king's knight is a strong defender and to attack it's often good to be able to trade that piece away. My next 50 games or so, I would rush to play Bg5 as white and immediately take the knight off, I had mixed results of course, but was always frustrated when I lost because I had my good knight and my opponent didn't, so I must be better somehow.
All general principals have exceptions, even my little counterpoints -- sometimes it's good to get all your pawns on the same color as your bishop etc. So like Shivsky said you never want to blindly follow one idea or another -- always better to look at the position in front of you.
Jul 7, 2010
0
#19
A friend once compared principles to a "GPS navigation" device. Sure, they are "mostly" always applicable, but you can still end up driving down the wrong way of a street if you're not careful :)
This discussion is as old as the hills. I've been on this site for 2 years, and there was a forum post similar to this on my first day here... 
Well, the bishop's power is tied to it's long range, making it far more useful in the endgame. Knights, with their jumping ability, are better suited to closed positions (or ones where the pawns block the bishops). Either way, a pair of bishops is a little better than a pair of knights at any point in the game, and when single, they are just about the same, in my opinion.
The knight and the bishop are worth three points and statistically the bishop is slightly stronger than the knight. Is there a study which one is more useful in the first half of the game e.g the first 20 moves.