Lately I have been playing a lot of games that people are willing to swap a bishop for a knight. I was always of the opinion that knights were less important than bishops as bishops can attack from long distance. These swaps usually take place early in the game and there doesn't seem to be a tactical advantage to them. Am I missing something?
knights can be very useful in games because they can pin pieces and attack from positions that no other piece can. also people tend not to see attacks with knights as clearly as they do from other pieces. and as well as this knights are the only peices which can attack queens with being threatened.
fred
Sometimes people will do this trade to win some material, double your pawns, or because they think that at this point in the game the knight is more useful. I almost always consider bishops and knights equal when I'm considering a trade because I think that any advantage is very small. Knights are excellent for manuevering and occupying the center and are good in closed positions. If the opponent made the trade for no discernable reason then they may just consider them equal.
Originally posted by JusuhA Knight lacks the range of a Bishop, but a Bishop is stuck on a certain color of square. The usual assessment is that Knights and Bishops are roughly equal (3 pts), and the position is what makes one more effective than another.
...yes knights mostly fork pieces. Anyway i think bishops are much more effective than knights, especially if opponent has lost one of his bishops and you dont. And bishop pair is often stronger than rook and knight. thats my experience.
No less than former World Champion Bobby Fischer scored a lot of points with the Exchange Ruy (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6). Fischer felt comfortable giving up a Bishop for Knight as well as giving the opponent two Bishops.