Should Knights be 4 point piece instead of 3?

If you tell it that the knights are worth an extra pawn, then it will avoid trading knights for bishops, given the option. If you specify that knights are worth a pawn less, then it will try to trade knights for bishops. Or something like that.

You're right, I guess English grammar doesn't make it clear what I mean.

I mean like, every time it pins its opponent's knight with its bishop, it always takes it immediately unless there's something "even stronger."

it would do both.

It is claimed that the incalculable knight can sometimes be around 4 plus–minus in bullet time scrambles. There is some ring of truth do this theory as time diminish, the quality of play become second priority and everything turns into chaos. 

When you are a beginner the knights are really scary at first but as you play more you start to realize that the bishop is actually better and in my opinion bishops should be the ones worth 4 points

But the value of the knight and bishop depend on the position. In a closed position the knight is better and open position the bishop is better. But generally positions will be open so bishops is more valuable in general

A lot of weaker players prefer knights.

I would say no

Knights can probe for blunders in a way that other pieces can't. That doesn't make them objectively powerful but it does make them statistically powerful against opponents who don't take the time to blunder check. They're scored at 3 points based upon their objective power but if you think your opponent isn't paying sufficiently attention to your moves then you should value your own knights more highly and vice versa.

The answer to the great debate of "bishops versus knights," is and always be, "it depends on the position." In closed positions with locked pawn formations, a knight tends to be far more valuable that a bishop. A knight on a good outpost can be worth more than a rook, in many positions. On the contrary, knights can often become liabilities when they have restricted movement. Usually, in very open positions, bishops tend to be more valuable that knights.

Bishop = about 3.1 or 3.2
Knight = about 2.8
Pair of bishops on fairly open board = maybe about 6.7
Pawn = 1

Freud would have been proud of this slip

Yeah it's all about culture, class and upbringing

Do the time zone differences result in a 6 year bump?

That scale can even be tweaked a bit more.

I would never rank an a- or h-Pawn as equal in value to an e- or d-Pawn. Not only is there the issue of central control, but there are several types of endgame positions in which a center Pawn will win while a Rook's Pawn will only draw.

In Q vs P endgames, an f- or c-Pawn can draw while any other Pawn loses. And so on.

I won't trade a bishop for a knight without a specific reason, and I won't trade a knight for a bishop without a specific reason. And I won't trade a bishop for a bishop without a specific reason, nor a knight for a knight. 

The real question is whether you'd trade a rook and a pawn for a bishop and a knight. That trade is often available right after castling.  I've forced that trade and lost....and I've had that trade forced on me.....and lost. 

You can pretty much disregard this whole post. 

I was thinking about wing pawns versus centre pawns. Obviously, centre pawns are usually worth a lot less than wing pawns in an ending, when there are pawns in the centre too, which makes it difficult. So I decided to go with pawn = 1.