bishops vs knights

i read that bishops and knight are both about 3 points.

I am wondering which piece is stronger - a bishop or a knight
(all other things being the same).

should i exchanging a knight for a bishop early in the game if i can gain a very minor advantage out of it?
should i exchanging a bishop for a knight early in the game if i can gain a very minor advantage out of it?

in any case i think it is better to have two knights or two bishops than one knight and one bishop.

what do u think?

Bishop 3.077

Knight 3.005

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19486
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=15466
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22368&page=3

Originally posted by pixar
i read that bishops and knight are both about 3 points.

I am wondering which piece is stronger - a bishop or a knight
(all other things being the same).

should i exchanging a knight for a bishop early in the game if i can gain a very minor advantage out of it?
should i exchanging a bishop for a knight early in the game if i can gain a very minor advan ...[text shortened]... is better to have two knights or two bishops than one knight and one bishop.

what do u think?

Bishops and knights have basically the same material value, it really depends on the kind of game you're playing; whether or not it's a closed or open game. Theoretically, bishops are better to have in the endgame, when the board opens up and allows the bishop to be used to its full extent, while they can be hindered in a tight, closed game. In those cases, knights are usually considered better. But, as with all of chess, it depends on the situation.

Originally posted by Wildfire
Bishops and knights have basically the same material value, it really depends on the kind of game you're playing; whether or not it's a closed or open game. Theoretically, bishops are better to have in the endgame, when the board opens up and allows the bishop to be used to its full extent, while they can be hindered in a tight, closed game. In those case ...[text shortened]... ts are usually considered better. But, as with all of chess, it depends on the situation.

Well, to expand that a little bit further about the endgame, if there's an endgame with pawns only on one side of the board, oftentimes a knight will be able to beat a bishop, since the bishop's long range capabilities aren't very significant, and the knight's ability to influence both kinds of squares will be more useful. But like everyone else as said, it all depends on the situation.

With all this being said though, there are more situations in which a bishop will be superior than there are where a knight would. So if you have a chance to grab the two-bishops advantage early in the game, it's usually a good idea to do so.

I'll tell you this. Most GMs will not give up a bishop without a good reason because they hope to have two bishops in the ending.

Kasparov mentioned that Deep Blue valued bishops TOO much over knights but who is he to criticize when it actually beat him? In any event if I played as well as Deep Blue I would be ok with that.

I think the knight is better here:



White's move

Chess is really not that simple a game.

You cannot have general rules about whether bishops are better than knights or vice versa.

It depends on the dynamics and the structure of the position.

Sometimes a bishop is better than a rook, or a knight might even be better than a queen.

Consider that there are many lines of the scicillian where black sacs the exchange giving up a rook for a knight in order to shatter whites pawn structure. Everything depends on the position. In general though a bishop is slightly better than a knight especially if 1) the bishop is outside the pawn chaing and 2) if there is action on both sides of the board (most notably in the endgame).
On an open board the power of the bisop pair cannot be disputed.

Originally posted by Natural Science
So if you have a chance to grab the two-bishops advantage early in the game, it's usually a good idea to do so.

And then....

What would Silman say... 🙂

The player with two bishops should try to create an imbalance on the board that will favor his two bishops.

Originally posted by pixar
i read that bishops and knight are both about 3 points.

I am wondering which piece is stronger - a bishop or a knight
(all other things being the same).

should i exchanging a knight for a bishop early in the game if i can gain a very minor advantage out of it?
should i exchanging a bishop for a knight early in the game if i can gain a very minor advan ...[text shortened]... is better to have two knights or two bishops than one knight and one bishop.

what do u think?

I'd rather hand over a knight instead of a bishop. That's me. personally.

Originally posted by Redmike
Chess is really not that simple a game.

You cannot have general rules about whether bishops are better than knights or vice versa.

It depends on the dynamics and the structure of the position.

Sometimes a bishop is better than a rook, or a knight might even be better than a queen.

I believe bishops also tend to be in "blind" spots too, which can be very dangerous to the opponent. Sort of like "hidden". They come outta nowhere!

Originally posted by wib
And then....

What would Silman say... 🙂

The player with two bishops should try to create an imbalance on the board that will favor his two bishops.

WWJSD? Always a good question

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
WWJSD? Always a good question

Hmmmmmmm....wwjsd?

Originally posted by Bowmann
Bishop 3.077

Knight 3.005

Queen.....9.022? Pawn...1.044?