Originally posted by crec2kThe true answer is: it depends on the position. If the position is open (center is not blocked by pawns) then the bishop is usually superior. If the position is closed (pawns blocking up the center) then oftentimes the side that has knights will be better off. It also depends on whether the kngiht has any outposts. (outposts are squares that your pawns control, but cannot be attacked by enemy pawns) A knight secured to an outpost on the fourth rank is as good as any bishop. A knight rooted to an outpost on the 5th rank is vastly superior to a bishop.
Which is better, the bishop or knight?
I always prefer the bishop, mainly for it's supurb mid/end game moves.
In the endgame a lot of the same rules apply, with one exception. If there are passed pawns (or potential passed pawns) on both sides of the board, the bishop usually has the advantage because of its long range. The knight has to hop all over the board furiously to accomplish what the bishop can do in a couple of moves. If all the action is on one side of the board, then the bishop's long range capability could be insignificant, while the knight's ability to affect squares of both colors may give it an advantage. I use expressions like "might", "could", and "usually" because there are general principles, not hard rules, and they are always exceptions.
Hopefully I have been helpful.
If I had to choose between having one bishop or one knight, I'd rather have the knight, since one bishop only ever covers one colour. That, and if you check someone with a knight and they cannot take the knight, the king is forced to move, since you can't put anything in front of it. Knights are often better at forking pieces too.
i often swap my bishops for knights ...
against lower rated players my knights then trick/fork them to death, while their bishops flounder hopelessly.
against higher rated players my knights seem pathetic against those incredibly perfect bishops that first threaten skewers, then exchange for a rook, finally they go for my king and force mate before we even reach an endgame.
Isn't there a russian axiom to the effect that the worst bishop is better than the best knight? Sure I've seen that quoted somewhere (Watson's 'Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy' maybe).
Basically, there have to be some very specific positional grounds to allow a knight to successfully fight a Bishop (secure outposts, Bishop restricted by its own pawns, etc.) Otherwise I think the Bishop's mobility gives it the edge, especially in the endgame.
As a counterpoint, Knights are meant to better complement Queens than Bishops do - Q's and B's both squabble over the same diagonals.
Originally posted by OsseA bad bishop will remain bad unitill you open the center by a pawn(s)sac or something, that will mean loss of material to make your bad bishop not so bad, but a bad knight (I mean knight knight stuck at the side or corner of the board) will still wrigle out in a few moves,
Isn't there a russian axiom to the effect that the worst bishop is better than the best knight? Sure I've seen that quoted somewhere (Watson's 'Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy' maybe).
Basically, there have to be some very specific positional grounds to allow a knight to successfully fight a Bishop (secure outposts, Bishop restricted by its own pawns, ...[text shortened]... better complement Queens than Bishops do - Q's and B's both squabble over the same diagonals.
I feel it is more difficult to handle a bad bishop that a bad knight
Prashant
Originally posted by PrashantA knight doesn't have to be stuck to the side of the board to be bad. If it's on a wide open board, with no secure outposts, trying to fight against a good bishop, good luck.
A bad bishop will remain bad unitill you open the center by a pawn(s)sac or something, that will mean loss of material to make your bad bishop not so bad, but a bad knight (I mean knight knight stuck at the side or corner of the board) will still wrigle out in a few moves,
I feel it is more difficult to handle a bad bishop that a bad knight
Prashant
Originally posted by paultopiaYesssss! Excellent book. I haven't read any other book that is so rich with PRACTICAL instruction. I have seen myself in that book so many times. I've been the guy who swats at ghosts, the guy who decides he needs to mate at all costs, and the guy who gave check becasue he didn't see anything better to do.
Oy. this is like the never-ending-thread-of-doom here.
Read The Amateur's Mind, by Jeremy Silman...