which do you like better knight or bishop.what would there values be??

Sort:
Xilmi

For both: 

3+Amount of possible moves at the given position*0.1

chessredpanda
timepass12345 wrote:
hobyF wrote:

My thought is that since you can checkmate with two bishops, but not two knights (without a blunder), the bishop would have to be worth slightly more than the knight.

by the same reasoning, you can checkmate with a rook, so two knights must be worth less than a rook. so, knight = 2.4 maybe? now, let us look at checkmate possibilities with blunders. even if your opponent blunders, or even cooperates with you, it is impossible to checkmate using just a king and bishop, or king and knight. By contrast, it is possible (if opponent blunders) to checkmate with a king and two pawns:

 




So, knight <2 points, and bishop < 2 points?!

less than 2 points??

Derekjj
chessredpanda wrote:

bishop 3.1 night 3.5

That is a broad question. You need to be more specific.

chessredpanda

whoops!!!!!!!I ment knight 3.1 and bishop 3.5

ilikecapablanca

B: 10 If the position allows a checkmate.

Kn: 10 If the position allows a checkmate.

 

Solved.

ilikecapablanca
littlebrat wrote:

Sometimes a pawn can be much more powerful than a queen. The values of knights and bishops are relative and that goes for all the pieces on the chessboard.

tada.

Roberts536

it depends on the spread of the pieces on the board and the density. If the board is packed and lots of squares are locked down or there is a tightly knit pawn structure, the knight would be more useful as it can hop around and attack the base of the structure/get within it. Also in an endgame if all the pawns/pieces are in one area the knight is more useful, but if there are some pawns around a file and some around h file, the knight can't travel between them fast enough to control the situation like the bishop can. By the same logic the bishop works well in open games especially when it nears the endgame where there are large distances to travel with no pieces blocking the way. To fork well with a bishop you generally want large open diagonals available to you, whereas to fork with a knight you want lots of pieces densely packed so that you have more forking options 

granitoman

It depends on the game, but i think i rather have 2 bishops over 2 knights, and a bishop over a knight in the endgame.

EDB123

A knight is worth more in the beginning, a bishop in the end.

Scottrf

Except from when the knight is worth more in the ending of course. Or the bishop is worth move in the beginning.

EDB123

I'm just using generalizations.

TheMushroomDealer

their values are different in every position so it's quite hard to say..

chessredpanda
owltuna wrote:

Where values be?

Here is what Emanuel Lasker said in 1925:

1st move = 1; 2d move = 0.8; 3d = 0.75; 4th = 0.67; 5th = 0.5;

KP, QP = 2; KBP, QBP = 1.5; KNP, QNP = 1.25; KRP, QRP = 0.5;

KN, QN = 4.5; KB = 5; QB = 4.5;

KR = 7; QR = 6;

Q = 11.

i don't understand that

waffllemaster

A bishop vs knight topic!  It's been so long!  I wondered when this topic was going to appear again.

ilikecapablanca

:)

waffllemaster

At one time it seemed like there was a new one every week.

chessredpanda
owltuna wrote:

Well, if you don't understand Lasker, better stay far away from Nimzowitsch! Let alone Dvoretsky....

But seriously, what part don't you understand?

ok i will stay away from nims grave cause hes dead.i don;t get the numbers and letters

waffllemaster

The letters are descriptive notation, the numbers are values.

The moves I guess are how much a tempo is worth?  I see the pattern 1-[0, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2].

faipalguguss

Playing against a knight in a  blitz time pressure end game is a nightmare, that is for sure

chessredpanda

3.5 b 3.2 n