I don´t understand people who only thinking about points.
Why isn't Bishop vs Knight considered to be a material imbalance?
Sort:
Why can't you spell "balance" in your thread title?
What a Baleen Whale.
*[Thanks for the later correction.] 
May 14, 2013
0
#4
It's a material imbalance, but it can fluctuate quickly.
Queen and Knight are better than Queen and Bishop in most positions... but if the Queens come off...
LongIslandMark wrote:
Another "B v. N" thread. Really?
LOL
Why aren't there more T & A's at GrandMaster Level?
Better topic by far. 
Its own force: Knight =3, Bishop =3,5.
A range attack: K= medium, B= full.
A fly ability: K=yes, B=no.
A board speed: K= slow, B=quick as lightning.
A corner force: K=2, B=6.
A central force: K=8, B=14.
Obviously, the bishop is strongest than knight. Don't you believe? Well! Can you checkmate me with two knights only?
LongIslandMark wrote:
Another "B v. N" thread. Really?
All these players from BishopVsKnight.com come here to chat it up.
--> BvsN@BishopVsKnight.com boring stuff that site should be gone soon.
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Pretty interesting examination of material value.
Quasimorphy wrote:
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Pretty interesting examination of material value.
I picked up the book.......
and left the store with a different book on that subject.
Another site i just found
KnightVsBishop.com I think it is better!
Many members there and rich with so many fun forums! 
Randomemory wrote:
It should be in my opinion. Different pieces, different values depending on the position, different everything really.
I think the only reason why people don't consider them = is because of the stupid arbitrary value that "they both = 3 always, therefore they are = always", bah patzers, screw em.
Anyways, it should be considered a material imbalence, but one we are very much used to.
Good news for you:
it IS indeed considered a material imbalance!
@royalbishop: There is a nightmare there! Oh, chessmare!!!
Andr_Alex wrote:
@royalbishop: There is a nightmare there! Oh, chessmare!!!
Right now a daymare!
Andr_Alex wrote:
Its own force: Knight =3, Bishop =3,5.
A range attack: K= medium, B= full.
A fly ability: K=yes, B=no.
A board speed: K= slow, B=quick as lightning.
A corner force: K=2, B=6.
A central force: K=8, B=14.
Obviously, the bishop is strongest than knight. Don't you believe? Well! Can you checkmate me with two knights only?
no that would only be possible if your playing a beginner
I think the knight is in a fuller a board. Otherwise it would be the bishop. They each have their own uses. In overall value though, I would consider them equal.
I love how that guy was off-topic really, claiming one was better than the other, patzer(!), lol, just gotta speak the truth.
Imo, whether one of pieces is worth more than the other, it can be concluded that they are both equally as important as each other.
Well, a lot of times you can get away with treating them as if they are the same -- something much harder to do in a case of for example, rook vs a minor piece -- you generally have to have a special justification for giving up the rook in those cases or else are likely to lose. With bishop and knight, eh, even if one is better than the other it doesn't really feel like life or death to make sure you keep the right piece, unless one of those pieces starts out in a trapped cage or something (although I consider that more of a positional thing).
It all depends on how you want to define it of course, but for me the difference (in value) of the pieces is so small it just doesn't have the feel of what we call a "material imbalance." When I "sacrifice" a bishop for a knight I might have some doubts about it, but it just doesn't feel the same as giving up an exchange. Whether you want to call bishop vs knight a material imbalance or not is up to you, but if it is, I'd consider it a very mellow one.
It should be in my opinion. Different pieces, different values depending on the position, different everything really.
I think the only reason why people don't consider them = is because of the stupid arbitrary value that "they both = 3 always, therefore they are = always", bah patzers, screw em.
Anyways, it should be considered a material imbalence, but one we are very much used to.