best end game pieces to have...

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Which is stronger?

[fen]4n3/8/8/4B3/4B3/8/8/4n3[/fen]

Black to move!

With only a few pieces on the board a bishop can restrict the knights movement in a way the knight cannot restrict the bishop.
Also 2 bishops can deliver mate but 2 knights cannot.

both sides have lost, the kings are off the board.

ENOUGH SEMANTICS!!

Obviously DragonFire is illustrating the power of bishops over knights.

As well it is good to note that a knight is a more dynamic piece, its value changes throughout the game. A knight on the 4th rank is about equal to a bishop where as a knight on the 5th rank is worth more then a bishop. This is obviously a generalization and in chess there are no generalizations that are true 100% of the time.

Originally posted by ChessJester
ENOUGH SEMANTICS!!

Obviously DragonFire is illustrating the power of bishops over knights.

As well it is good to note that a knight is a more dynamic piece, its value changes throughout the game. A knight on the 4th rank is about equal to a bishop where as a knight on the 5th rank is worth more then a bishop. This is obviously a generalization and in chess there are no generalizations that are true 100% of the time.

In the middle and early end game when a lot of pawns may remain on the board, the pawns may restrict the bishops movement, and because knights can "jump" over pieces they can be stronger. As the board opens up, however, the bishops comparative strength increases. 2 bishops on an open board should easily defeat 2 knights (although the placement of the pawns, kings and any other pieces will, of course, be important in determining if the 2 bishops actually win)

i personally suck at endgames...
i would still prefer a bishop any time, as mos GMs agree that bishops are stronger, and thats enough for me!
also, especially with a pair of bishops(!!) the problem of only controlling 1/2 of the squares is solved, and bishops are generally MUCH faster than knights... thus making them more useful in aiding/preventing a pawn promotion, depending on the case...
also, the most important reason has been mentioned, but i want to repeat it anyway, as it is the most important reason, after all...
2 bishops can mate...
two knights can not...
need i say more?

Originally posted by zebano
Actually in an end game on one side of the board, a knight is often better than a bishop due to it's ability to influence both color squares. For instance in the case of rook pawn + minor piece +king vrs lone king. If the winning sides king is far away, and the weak sides king close to the action then...

Unless the pawn is on the seventh rank the knight + ...[text shortened]... not the color of the bishop, then the defending side will draw. If it is, the bishop will win.

Yes, in a a piece and pawn endgame with all the pawns on one side, a knight is not only better often than a bishop, it is at least equal to a rook in many cases.

Knights also work very well with queens in endgame situations.

There are particular endgame positions where knights are potent.

But the general rule that knights are better in an endgame is utter nonsense. Bishops are far better more often, and a rook is often equal to a knight and bishop in an open board. The knight's strength is found early in the game, rather than late.

In this example, the single bishop is quite useful when it works with the rook.

Game 2264740

Arguing the strength of the Bishop versuses the Knight in the endgame depends on location and pawn structure.

Knights are grim on the rim. Bishops are more useful in a pair or working together with other pieces.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Which is stronger?

[fen]4n3/8/8/4B3/4B3/8/8/4n3[/fen]

Black to move!

With only a few pieces on the board a bishop can restrict the knights movement in a way the knight cannot restrict the bishop.
Also 2 bishops can deliver mate but 2 knights cannot.

Then again, it's not always easy to get all 16 of those pawns off the board. Why, leave a few and the tables can turn:


White to play and win

Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]But the general rule that knights are better in an endgame is utter nonsense. Bishops are far better more often, and a rook is often equal to a knight and bishop in an open board. The knight's strength is found early in the game, rather than late.
b]

Actually, your wrong. Knights are actually better than bishops when there's pawns on only one side of the board

When there are pawns, especially passed pawns, on the both sides of the board then bishops are generally stronger. When there are pawns only on one side then knights are generally stronger.

Originally posted by Jusuh
When there are pawns, especially passed pawns, on the both sides of the board then bishops are generally stronger. When there are pawns only on one side then knights are generally stronger.

Exactly, I cant understand why Wulebgr didnt know that

Originally posted by Jusuh
When there are pawns, especially passed pawns, on the both sides of the board then bishops are generally stronger. When there are pawns only on one side then knights are generally stronger.

Yes, that makes sense as a general rule. The reason being that the bishops can get from the one side to the other far quicker than the knights.

Unfortunately, as in all things in chess, it is important to understand these rules in the context of the position. In certain circumstances a knight could be stronger than a queen - why otherwise would a player sacrifice a queen.

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
Actually, your wrong. Knights are actually better than bishops when there's pawns on only one side of the board

Read the whole post. I said that two lines earlier.

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
Exactly, I cant understand why Wulebgr didnt know that

I said it.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Yes, in a a piece and pawn endgame with all the pawns on one side, a knight is not only better often than a bishop, it is at least equal to a rook in many cases.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
it is just me or do the knights seem a lot more powerful during the end game;

Evidently, it is not just you. Others are confused, too. As a rule, knights are not better in the endgame. They are better early in the game.

There are particular endgame positions where knights perform well, but they are generally weaker in the endgame than in the middlegame and opening.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Yes, that makes sense as a general rule. The reason being that the bishops can get from the one side to the other far quicker than the knights.

Unfortunately, as in all things in chess, it is important to understand these rules in the context of the position. In certain circumstances a knight could be stronger than a queen - why otherwise would a player sacrifice a queen.

that is exactly why I used the word "generally" two times.