The Mysterious Quote

When I first started playing chess online, about a year ago, I ran into a quote somewhere that went something like this:

"What is more important, the bishop or the knight?  If you ask a master, they will tell you it is the bishop.  The master knows that bishops are powerful because of the way they move.  But if you ask a beginner, they will tell you it is the knight that is more important, and it is also because of the way they move.  Beginners like the knight because it is dark and mysterious."

Now, I know that I haven't got it correct, word for word, but the gist is pretty much the same - the bit about, "beginners like the knight because it is mysterious", is particularly vivid in my memory.  I was wondering if anyone had any idea where this quote came from and if they have the exact wording of it...  I hope it will ring a bell for someone and they can recall the source!

On February 6th, I had officially been a Chess.com member for one year!  What a long, strange trip it's been!

Thanks for the comment "rich", but I just want to know who said it, not if it is a truism.

The value of knight vs bishop is completely dependant on the position. In an endgame a knight can be much more valuable than a bishop if the bishop's pawns are posted on squares that are the same color that the bishop controls. This is called "good knight vs bad bishop" and is one of the basic endgame scenarios which you should know. Also in endings bishops are stronger when there are pawns on both sides of the board, as long as it isn't a 'bad' bishop, because bishops are long range pieces. In the middle game the values are roughly bishop = 3, knight = 2.5 but again this is dependant on the position.

Remember bishops are restricted to a color group, either black or white squares, whereas a knight can control any square on the board, given time to move to correct position.

By the way there is nothing 'mysterious' about the knight's move. Bishops control diagonals, just as rooks control ranks and files. If you put a knight in the middle of the board and place a pawn on every square the knight controls you will see that the knight represents a circle, or as close to one as you can get on a square board. This concept will be familiar to anyone who understands how curves are represented by the square pixels on a computer screen.

You guys don't understand at all.  I just wanted to know who said it. 

I've always liked the bishop more than the knight,. I tend to simplify things by exchanging pieces and playing in an open board, maybe that's the reason I like them more than knights.

However, chawil is right, the value of those pieces depends on the board (open or closed) and the ability of the player to use them. Remember also that maybe one knight is worth more than a bishop, but two bishops are worth more than two knights :)

You don't know who said the quote either.

nope, sry.

the author had to be after the 15th century as before that the bishop could only move two spaces.

I like this thread! The OP is getting angry at people responding to his post and giving their opinions on the topic.

Very classy!

 I'm not angry at all.  Clearly, people have very strong opinions about the values of bishops vs. knights, which is why I found the quote interesting in the first place...

The search goes on!

I think the topic was called "Bishop or Knight", and I don't know who wrote it.

I have also read this quote and the name "Jeremy Silman" pops to mind. Don't quote me on this however.

Which is stronger, the bishop or the knight? Mikhalchishin writes, "At the post-mortem Tigran Petrosian and Eduard Gufeld completely disagreed on the nature of the position, in particular on the role and strength of the dark-squared bishop. Gufeld declared that Black must be fine with a bishop that controls half the board. Petrosian countered 'But what will it attack on the dark squares?' The great Tigran was right: the bishop is less effective than it looks and white can play powerfully on the light squares."  

??

Are you sure it was chess they were talking about?