Bishops would be better for blessing stuff while knights could pull a plow better and poop more.
What's better knight or bishop?
Sort:
Why I think knights are better:
A check or any other kind of threat by a knight cannot be blocked by anything. A bishop can be blocked.
A knight can threaten both black and white squares. A bishop threatens only one color.
Don't know why people say knights are only better in the end game when all the pieces are gone. When a lot of pieces are on the board a knight can jump over them. A bishop cannot jump over anything.
A completely befuddling unpredictable attack can be accomplished with a couple of knights.
Two knights can protect each other. Two bishops cannot protect each other.
Over all a knight is just a more complex and interesting and unpredictable weapon than a bishop is.
I played a game today on another site that I think aptly demonstrates the value of knights at the end (which btw was still in the middle game).
you need knight overcome the enemy pawn and bishop to attack afterwards
SPAM or corned beef hash... I think that's the real dilemma that needs to be solved before we start concerning ourselves with trivial matters like knight vs bishop!
If I'm down a piece or a queen, i would rather have a knight than a bishop. It is easier to gain back with a piece that can strike it multiple,closed places.(knight)
This question will never be answered so basically this thread is for people like me who must be bored, or don't have moves in their game. I see this too often.
But knights lack the agillity of the bishop
May 2, 2009
0
#28
knight in the opening and bishop in the endgame.
middlegame: closed position, knight. Open position, bishop.
i guess it would depend on whether its an open or closed game.... knights deal with closed games better with outposts, opposed to bishops with no room to move around, and just the opposite with open games.
This reminds me of a zen lesson:
A man enters the butcher and asks 'What cut of meat is your best?'
The butcher answered the man, 'They are all the best!'
So, in our case,
the bishop is the best at being a bishop
the knight is the best at being a knight!
there is nothing more than this.
ChessKitty wrote:
That's argueable
Thoug most have concluded that while in the middlegame a knight holds equal to a slight advantage, bischops hold more value in the endgame.
It's a matter of preference I guess.
actually i think the knight is better in an endgame
Knight.
Both are equally bad. Knights never get to where you want them quick enough and bishops always get blocked in.
They both taste about the same...like plastic.
In my game, knights are fighters while bishops are snipers. BISHOPS ROCK!!!!!
you know both have their own special powers. i like a knight outpost. I like a long range bishop.
Jul 12, 2009
0
#37
ChessKitty wrote:
That's argueable
Thoug most have concluded that while in the middlegame a knight holds equal to a slight advantage, bischops hold more value in the endgame.
It's a matter of preference I guess.
Who is this "most"? I've never heard that from any of the books I've read, videos of watched, etc.
Attn. Erik: Please sticky this topic, so that people will be able to find all the discussions on it:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/which-is-more-valuable-bishop-or-knight
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/interesting-question-about-bishop-knight-swaps
etc, etc...
Depends on the position.
Also, look at the survey below:
http://www.chess.com/survey/which-is-better-a-knight-or-a-bishop
and besides bishop is a sniper in the game...every one loves a sniper.....BAMM!!...sniper took a head shot at the queen.
Both are equally good, in my opinion. Knights are good for setting traps, while bishops are good for supporting. Both have saved me from losing numerous times. And there have been situation where I wish I have one of them.
It's just really hard to decide which is better