To refer to the oft mooted question, "Which piece is stronger, the Bishop or the Knight?" it is clear that the value of the Bishop undergoes greater changes than that of the Knight. ~ Emanuel Lasker
Now whether or not he is implying that is a positive or negative i do not know?
Could somebody please elaborate?
To refer to the oft mooted question, "Which piece is stronger, the Bishop or the Knight?" it is clear that the value of the Bishop undergoes greater changes than that of the Knight. ~ Emanuel Lasker
Now whether or not he is implying that is a positive or negative i do not know?
Could somebody please elaborate?
That quote is from the book, "A Reader", by Emanuel Lasker, who was World Chess Champion for a record 27 years.
What he meant was in chess, the position on the board almost always closes, or more often, opens as the game goes on. As those changes take place, they affect the power of the bishop more. If the position closes, the B becomes weaker, but more often, the position eventually opens, and the B gains strength. The N can certainly find a good square at times, but it's power does not radically change as much as the bishop's, or in as many positions.
On another note to this conversation, on the same page in that book as your quote, Lasker, himself, kind of settles this whole argument when he says: "The knight is, unless circumstances are very favorable, the weakest piece of all.... His great power is that he cannot be obstructed."
@lfPatriotGames It still does not come down to the player or ability. The question was "Who is the most powerful ??? Bishop or knight???". That is a chess question, and should be limited to the game, not adding in some random 700 player. Just because a 700 THINKS he handles a N better, that does not mean he does either.
It is what is on the board that always counts when evaluating a position, although you can take into account your opponent in certain instances like maybe one likes tactical melees or likes positional play, and aim for positions that he, or she, may not like. Even there, you still have to decide where to put pieces, and what to trade off to get to a position that fits what you keep on the board.
It all comes down to the player, or ability. Why? Because it's chess. And two people playing chess is all about ability. Now if you are talking about two machines playing chess, I'll bet the bishop is better, depending on position. But I think the OP was talking about people. It's a chess question, and you have to factor in who is playing the chess. The same question could be asked about which is better, a knight and two pawns, or a rook? Most people I'm sure would rather have the knight and two pawns, but it all depends on what a person can do with them.
I have no doubt there are lots of examples where a bishop or knight is better, depending on position. But for every one of those examples, there are probably many thousands where it depends on the player instead. Not every human player is going to play any given position exactly the same way. We are human, we do really weird stuff.
Well, I'll shred your belief. The value of a knight compared to a bishop is what we're talking about, not how strong a player will use a minor piece or the comparison of the two minor pieces depending on one's ability to use it. Well, if you compare the capability of a club player to use minor pieces to the capability of the grandmaster, I'm sure grandmasters are better at handling pieces. But we're not talking with the capability/ability of a player compared to the other.
Actually, the power of a knight or a bishop depends on the position. Open positions are bishops' dreams, while closed positions are knights' dreams, but not always. For example, the knight is on a very strong outpost while the "good bishop" of the other player is just sitting on a useless square. If the position is open, the knight is still better. Another example would be the Stonewall c8-bishop. At first, you won't find use for it, but in actuality, the bishop on c8 is very useful. You can maneuver that bishop to h5, where it will be strong, or put it on b7 so that if the position opens, the bishop will find good prospects. Generally, the value of a knight compared to a bishop depends on which piece has more prospects, not if the position is closed or open.
I agree with most of what you said. The piece value is something like a knight at 3 and a bishop at 3.25. There is probably enough research to feel confident that's pretty close to accurate. The "power" of either a knight or bishop though depends entirely (100%) on the person using it. It's just a chess piece. It's "power" is zero until a person uses it in a chess game.
A great position, with the right piece, is completely useless if the person doesn't realize it or doesn't know how to play it. At that point the more powerful piece, depending on position, becomes a paperweight.
People have tendencies, they have preferences, they have biases and they make poor judgements. That's just human nature. Chess is a game of constant mistakes. So what one person finds to be an advantage, another person can find to be a disadvantage. It just depends how the person plays the pieces and positions.
What absolute bs you are spewing. Now you will say that the knight is more powerful than the queen just because a grandmaster can beat a patzer by giving knight for Queen odds.
The power of a chess piece is determined by the rules of the game, and who is playing them. I would not compare a knight to a queen, because they are so far apart. But the principle is the same as two rooks vs queen, rook vs knight and two pawns, bishop and two knights vs queen, etc.
Yes, under the circumstances you describe, the knight would probably be more powerful. People who play a lot of chess like to say things like "it depends on the position". Of course that can be true, but why is the position the way it is? It's because of the player, NOT the "power" of the pieces themselves.
Around 1925, Emanuel Lasker wrote:
"... Some players prefer the knight to bishop, others the bishop to knight … Who is in the right? Or is there neither right nor wrong in these proceedings; ...
… We rivet our attention on the games of the experienced, the thinking, the strong players, preferably the strongest of them, the masters, and among them certain regularities show very plainly. The experience derived from games played between such as deserve the title of masters, during centuries has proven these regularities. Hence, we know that ceteris paribus knight and bishop are even, either is ceteris paribus worth three pawns, ...
… 'All other circumstances being equal,' that is the meaning of ceteris paribus. In strict logic, the other circumstances are never equal. … The nearly perfect player - says the master - is he who judges. We erring mortals, try to guess his judgment. …
… Ceteris paribus notwithstanding, the exchange values of which a few are set down above, are therefore always somewhat problematical. For all that, they are to the chessplayer a most needed compass. If he conscientiously follows them, his ship nearly always, even though only after many moves, runs safely into port. …"
It depends of the position, if your position is open, the bishop is better than knight. but i prefer the knight
Bishops are like big pawns who can sacrifice from further away but you want to give them sooner because they get worse as the game goes on (can't promote)
Knights are the best piece on the board and dominate easily if you know how to use them right
I guess you know more than a 27-year world champion, who called it the weakest piece, but OK. 
Bishop
Said the person, who barely knows how the "horsie" moves. You and your "close friend Kasparov" (year right), can eat my shorts.
What an interesting question, which is better, Bishop or Knight? I don't think anyone has ever asked that question before. (Please, this is sarcasm.) The prevailing wisdom from various sources is that the Knight may be better earlier on and Bishop later in the game as fewer pieces remain and there are more open diagonals for the Bishops to exploit. Two Bishops can force a checkmate, unlike two Knights (unless helped by poor play). This would seem to indicate the Bishop is marginally better.
However, I am in Wollensock's camp, I actually prefer the Knight and will generally be willing to trade a Knight for a Bishop which goes against "conventional wisdom" in most situations (not all). If someone is really good with their Knights, I wouldn't be too quick to disparage them; after all, they have a right to play the way they prefer and can be deadly.
Around 1925, Emanuel Lasker wrote:
"... Some players prefer the knight to bishop, others the bishop to knight … Who is in the right? Or is there neither right nor wrong in these proceedings; ...
… We rivet our attention on the games of the experienced, the thinking, the strong players, preferably the strongest of them, the masters, and among them certain regularities show very plainly. The experience derived from games played between such as deserve the title of masters, during centuries has proven these regularities. Hence, we know that ceteris paribus knight and bishop are even, either is ceteris paribus worth three pawns, ...
… 'All other circumstances being equal,' that is the meaning of ceteris paribus. In strict logic, the other circumstances are never equal. … The nearly perfect player - says the master - is he who judges. We erring mortals, try to guess his judgment. …
… Ceteris paribus notwithstanding, the exchange values of which a few are set down above, are therefore always somewhat problematical. For all that, they are to the chessplayer a most needed compass. If he conscientiously follows them, his ship nearly always, even though only after many moves, runs safely into part. …"
Those are the answers that more people should consider.
I have found that, for whatever reason, some people are just better at one over the other. My guess is that more creative people prefer knights, more logical people prefer bishops.
It depends on the position and I think it's really important to understand which positions work best for each piece. You want to avoid simplifying in to a lost endgame because you have a knight in a position where the bishop is better (and vice versa).
Whenever I'm evaluating a trade in the middle game that involves bishop and knight I always try and evaluate which piece is likely to be better in the resulting endgame.
Around 1925, Emanuel Lasker wrote:
"... Some players prefer the knight to bishop, others the bishop to knight … Who is in the right? Or is there neither right nor wrong in these proceedings; ...
… We rivet our attention on the games of the experienced, the thinking, the strong players, preferably the strongest of them, the masters, and among them certain regularities show very plainly. The experience derived from games played between such as deserve the title of masters, during centuries has proven these regularities. Hence, we know that ceteris paribus knight and bishop are even, either is ceteris paribus worth three pawns, ...
… 'All other circumstances being equal,' that is the meaning of ceteris paribus. In strict logic, the other circumstances are never equal. … The nearly perfect player - says the master - is he who judges. We erring mortals, try to guess his judgment. …
… Ceteris paribus notwithstanding, the exchange values of which a few are set down above, are therefore always somewhat problematical. For all that, they are to the chessplayer a most needed compass. If he conscientiously follows them, his ship nearly always, even though only after many moves, runs safely into part. …"
Those are the answers that more people should consider.
I have found that, for whatever reason, some people are just better at one over the other. My guess is that more creative people prefer knights, more logical people prefer bishops.
The stronger a player the better they are with their knights.
Probably. I'm sure the stronger someone is the better they are at both. But I think I know what you mean.
Bishops are like big pawns who can sacrifice from further away but you want to give them sooner because they get worse as the game goes on (can't promote)
Knights are the best piece on the board and dominate easily if you know how to use them right
I guess you know more than a 27-year world champion, who called it the weakest piece, but OK.
Around 1925, Emanuel Lasker wrote:
"... Some players prefer the knight to bishop, others the bishop to knight … Who is in the right? Or is there neither right nor wrong in these proceedings; ...
… We rivet our attention on the games of the experienced, the thinking, the strong players, preferably the strongest of them, the masters, and among them certain regularities show very plainly. The experience derived from games played between such as deserve the title of masters, during centuries has proven these regularities. Hence, we know that ceteris paribus knight and bishop are even, either is ceteris paribus worth three pawns, ...
… 'All other circumstances being equal,' that is the meaning of ceteris paribus. In strict logic, the other circumstances are never equal. … The nearly perfect player - says the master - is he who judges. We erring mortals, try to guess his judgment. …
… Ceteris paribus notwithstanding, the exchange values of which a few are set down above, are therefore always somewhat problematical. For all that, they are to the chessplayer a most needed compass. If he conscientiously follows them, his ship nearly always, even though only after many moves, runs safely into port. …"
@kindaspongey Preference and the original question, which is more powerful, are two different questions that many here do not understand. It has been firmly established in the 100 years since that the B is more powerful, more often.
@kindaspongey Preference and the original question, which is more powerful, are two different questions that many here do not understand. It has been firmly established in the 100 years since that the B is more powerful, more often.
Only when power was considered by how many squares a piece can control. Now we know the knight is actually more valuable and if other pieces are still on the board it is almost always worth to trade up to a whole queen if you will have the only knight (:
I love how all you players, who can barely play, have such strong opinions. IN MOST POSITIONS, the B has been found to be stronger. That is a fact, and is indisputable. Your preferences, or that a N can attack both color squares, is irrelevant.
@kindaspongey Preference and the original question, which is more powerful, are two different questions that many here do not understand. It has been firmly established in the 100 years since that the B is more powerful, more often.
I am not sure why you are directing this to me. My contribution here has been to reproduce more of what Lasker wrote. (I have also posted a list of links to previous bishop-knight discussions.)
First, I was 2300 at my peak, and while you might make GM "odds" are WAY against you, and I especially doubt it with your attitude and willingness to listen, you would have faced MUCH greater odds had you tried to get where I am in the beginning of the 1980s when I made Master. Unless you lived right in the middle of a chess city, like New York, all we had then was books, and very limited competition at the local clubs. There were no databases, no engines, no Internet, no videos, limited competition, and even the books were not as good as today.
And since you persist with the Kasparov is your friend BS, and he said the N is better, here he is in his own words answering questions on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3uvvA7dyoI (this question is 30 seconds in)
Kasparov also says the B is worth more.
Boon Leong Louis Hor is rated 1690, born in 1954, and is from Malaysia.
https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=5736897