Which is better, Bishop or Knight? - Chess Forums - Page 2

Preggo_Basashi

Jun 23, 2018

0

#21

DetectiveRams wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

subhankhurram wrote:

Hi guys!

I've been hearing so many people argue about the Bishop being better than the Knight and the Knight being better than the Bishop. I think the Bishop is better than the Knight, what do you guys think?

Averaged over many games they're worth the same.

But in every position each piece's value changes. This includes pawns, rooks, queens, everyone. One knight wont be worth the same as the other knight, for example.

There is a small bonus for the bishop pair though, so the first bishop you lose is usually worth a little more... but as a lower rated player you should probably just ignore that. It takes a fair amount of jiu-jitsu to grind the bishop pair all the way to a win.

Google "kauffmans material imbalances" to read more. This dude did statistical analysis of a database full of games where all players were rated over 2300.

The bishop pair isn't a small advantage. Though they cant do trick knight forks, they are an extreme pain to play against, and you usually want to get rid of one.

Yeah, they can be a pain to defend against. Yeah, you usually want to get rid of one (if you don't have the bishop pair and they do) but it's still a small advantage

And I think it's important to say so because otherwise you tell a beginner about the bishop pair, and suddenly they're playing all their games, never trading a bishop for a knight, thinking that this is a good strategy.

Preggo_Basashi

Jun 23, 2018

0

#22

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

whats interesting though is that in the same opening in a different sideline, black also ends up in a bishop pair vs bishop knight pair, except its absolutely equal because white has a weak e pawn black can attack twice, but since white has a bishop pair, can only defend once!

Yeah, exactly.

The bishop pair can be a huge factor... or not.

(And a big part of a piece's value in endgames is whether or not it can attack vulnerable pawns... actually this is much more useful advice IMO than anything about the bishop pair)

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2018

0

#23

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708111530/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bvkt.pdf

LouStule

Jun 24, 2018

0

#24

I’m in an endgame right now where I have one knight and my opponent one bishop. Most of my pieces are on different color than his bishop so the bishop is kinda useless right now where as my knight is bouncing all over the place causing him havoc.

WSama

Jun 25, 2018

0

#25

LouStule wrote:

I’m in an endgame right now where I have one knight and my opponent one bishop. Most of my pieces are on different color than his bishop so the bishop is kinda useless right now where as my knight is bouncing all over the place causing him havoc.

Haha sounds like fun.

pawn8888

Jun 26, 2018

0

#26

A bishop stuck behind a pawn can be pretty useless whereas a knight can jump over a pawn which is a useful advantage sometimes.

jbandit310

Jun 26, 2018

0

#27

Bishops are better because it only takes 1 move to get to the end and knight takes 4. Look.

\

JustOneUSer

Jun 26, 2018

0

#28

If you want to go to battle for chivalrous reasons or fight dragons, Knights.

If you want to practice mass or some other religious service on a diocese level, try a bishop.

If you want to go on a religious crusade either would do.

Okay, jokes aside, I think they're both equally important at the start of the game at move 0. It's only as the game progresses that they start to become more specialised in what they can do. (Keep In mind I'm a lowly 1300 and so probably not worth listening to.)

I've heard that on board containing only bishops or only Knights, engines usually favour the bishop side.

LouStule

Jun 26, 2018

0

#29

P.S to post #32. I won the game and the knight did it.

subhankhurram

Jul 8, 2018

0

#30

Zanthoxylum wrote:

KyslaVietnam wrote:

I think Knight is better than Bishop because Knight can check and eat Rook, Bishop, Queen, Pawn.

Bishop can't? That's a very short view on this matter. Although family forks can only be done by knights.

LOL the Knight CAPTURES pieces, it doesn't EAT pieces LOL

HolographWars

Jul 8, 2018

0

#31

subhankhurram wrote:

Zanthoxylum wrote:

KyslaVietnam wrote:

I think Knight is better than Bishop because Knight can check and eat Rook, Bishop, Queen, Pawn.

Bishop can't? That's a very short view on this matter. Although family forks can only be done by knights.

LOL the Knight CAPTURES pieces, it doesn't EAT pieces LOL

Neigh, the horse eats pieces. Bishops 's capture, horses eat. The reason why knights are so dangerous is that there is no antidote to a horse bite.

LouStule

Jul 9, 2018

0

#32

I’m gonna win a game right now where in the end game I sacrificed a rook to get rid of a very annoying knight. It left me a bishop against his remaining rook but I had two passed pawns and was able to promote one but if I had left his knight it wouldn’t have been possible. I’ll post if interested. Also post game referenced in post #31 if asked.

arjunraje2010

Jul 9, 2018

0

#33

Depends on the position

pawn8888

Jul 13, 2018

0

#34

One thing the knight can do that the bishop can't is the big bad fork, which has probably been said before. A good fork can end the game fast and usually they come as a big surprise to your opponent. A bishop is harder to surprise.

x3x3x3x3

Jul 13, 2018

0

#35

Knight, knight,knight. That's all you need to know X

lfPatriotGames

Jul 13, 2018

0

#36

pawn8888 wrote:

One thing the knight can do that the bishop can't is the big bad fork, which has probably been said before. A good fork can end the game fast and usually they come as a big surprise to your opponent. A bishop is harder to surprise.