Should I trade knights for bishops or vise versa

I would really like to know what you think.

Thx for any comments

Search on the Internet for the "MINOR EXCHANGE"

Sometimes I take knights with bishops. Sometimes I take bishops with knights. Sometimes I take either of them with rooks. It depends what I think is to my advantage.

You just have to learn what those advantages are.

Generally speaking:

In an open game, bishops have more range.  In a closed game, knights can often position themselves well

You can't just memorise rules to play chess.

Lol, i'd trade a queen (9) points for a pair or combination of the two (6) points Lol.  Just sayin lol.

How do you have a good rating?

What rating?  Dude i don't play rated OTB, besides i don't like playin with a queen, i'm fond of queen odds, especially at quick games Lol.

Your bullet one. Trading a queen for two minor pieces is horrible, yet you're rated pretty well there.

Perhaps it would affect you more in longer games.

I had a high school friend who went around saying "generalities are always false".  I wondered if that too, was a generality.

Yeah it would, i'd never do a stunt like that on a game longer than a minute , unless my opponent bores the heck outta me and i'm hungry for a challenge  lololol.

It really depends on the situation, if exchanging the piece means you get greater attacking potential, or a better position is acquired, or weakens your opponents defense, something that gives you a clear advantage then there isn't much to think about besides this is the correct move. Sometimes it is best to leave your piece as is only if your piece is adequately protected, thus if your opponent takes (hopefully) you retake gaining a slight upper hand.

During end games, when most pieces have been exchanged/sacrificed, depending on how many pieces are on the board, bishops tend to be a great nuisance across clear diagonals. But if pawns are locked up, knights can be handy to jump around both evading capture and enabling attack.

Whatever you decide to do, just remember by playing this move you need to justify to yourself how it helps you (talking about minor exchanges) or weakens/slows down your opponents game.

If you take knight with bishop or vice versa and gain no or temporary advantage, perhaps it isn't worth taking. You want to maintain as much pieces to build a successful attack, so don't help your opponent by removing pieces off the board if isn't necessary.

Always have some sort of target, such as do you want to attack/remove a certain piece you can't reach yet, do you want to place one of your pieces higher up the board etc, by reminding yourself your little goals you can calculate which pieces you need and what moves you need to play to achieve this.

As one member already suggested, you may want to search google/YouTube for minor exchanges.

Generally a bishop is slightly worth more than a knight (most of chess engines rate a bishop at 3.25 points and a knight at 3).

The reason is because a bishop's weakness (can cover only half of the board) will be solved completely when cooperating with another one. In contrast, a knight will remain as a short-range combatant to the end of the game. 

However, there is an usual situation. You can exchange your bishop for a knight to create a double pawn on the enemy kingside. This may compensate for the disadvantage in terms of material.

To conclude, I would say that a knight is more useful than a bishop in the opening, because a well-built pawn structure can block every path of the latter. The bishop will become more active toward the end game, after a few pawns have been cleared.

Scottrf wrote:

Na, isolating pawns is nowhere near compensation.

No

Pawn structure. Reading it is like a road map, it will guide you to make a decision as to whether a knight or bishop is more useful. Pawn structures, study them.