Go back
Bishop or Knight?

Bishop or Knight?

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

nearly forgot.. the power of the knight and smothered checkmate.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Agree wholeheartedly with all those who say "it depends".

When the board gets cluttered with immovable pawns, a knight is often the only solution to breaking through. Quite simply it can reach spots that other pieces dare not go.

I also find knights more useful against an opponent who's castled.

Having said that, I tend to prefer to lose a knight early on rather than a bishop. One knight can substitute for the other if need be, whereas the two bishops can't reach the same squares.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bowmann
The pieces have no consistent values during a game.

Examples:
A Rock's Prawn is "worth" less than a King's Prawn.
Prawns' values generally increase throughout the game.
The values of a Horsey (3) and a Bish (3.1) can fluctuate significantly from one stage to another.
etc.

http://www.chessville.com/reviews/RethinkingTheChessPieces.htm

Which ...[text shortened]... er because I can chant Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, which is slightly more fun.
LOL!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Defensively Bishops are clearly hugely superior pieces. Using knights for most defensive duties is a bit like relying on John Cleese in The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch.

Vote Up
Vote Down

While either can be more powerful than the other depending on the situation, knights are aethetically superior. Their powers are unique, unlike bishops which move like little hamstrung queens. I think that's why they are the only piece that has to be specially carved rather than made from a slight modification to a simple wood turning.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I prefer Ns because they can fork pieces and I will usually exchange B for N.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I would again be of the opinion that it varies, but mostly I would go for the knight over the bishop as it is a unique skill among chess pieces, as long as u have your queen, all of the other pieces modes of movements are covered, yet only a knight can move in the way it does. It is also most useful for forking the king with other pieces such as rooks near the start of the game, and plus can be used very well in tandum with all of the other pieces, so with support I would rate knights over bishops

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Thomas Payne
I prefer Ns because they can fork pieces and I will usually exchange B for N.
Yes, Horseys can be really dirty forkers too.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I have heard one of the great masters (I think it was Kasparov) quoted as saying that relative beginners develop a fear of the opponents knight but as they aquire more of a sense for how the things move bishops become relatively more dangerous. In play, I don't necessarily prefer one over the other; it's situational. However, I think knights more likely to be involved in pretty combinations.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by arrakis

When you play this exercise you should know that a knight, with correct play, will always win against the two pawns. [The pawns are on their starting positions and connected, the knight on its no other pieces - My addition]
Is this true if the pawns are further down the board? and does it still work with kings on the board, since the player with pawns is compelled to move the absence of kings makes a difference?
Good idea for training purposes, I'll definitely see if I can find someone to try this with, deserves a rec.

Vote Up
Vote Down

What does it matter anyway?

It's like asking whether you prefer food over drink. You have sixteen chessmen. Would you rather play the game with just one or two?

🙄

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by arrakis
Here's the scoop mate:
...
A king, if played correctly, can win against 4 pawns!
...
Cheers,
arrakis
i.e. black pawns: b7, c7, d7, e7
white king: c1
I cannot see how! White king can't stop more than 2 pawns.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Skorj
I have heard one of the great masters (I think it was Kasparov) quoted as saying that relative beginners develop a fear of the opponents knight but as they aquire more of a sense for how the things move bishops become relatively more dangerous. In play, I don't necessarily prefer one over the other; it's situational. However, I think knights more likely to be involved in pretty combinations.
Capablanca also said much the same thing.

If I've got a relatively open position and a passed pawn, I'd want a bishop on the colour of the potential Queening square. In open positions, the bishop has the advantage that it can control a lot more squares and quickly shift around. The knight on the other hand needs to be in close support - it can't influence proceedings from a distance, which also can make it vulnerable. Knights in such a position operate better when they have support and can work in conjunction with another piece. Here's a recent game in which after a knight move (at 31...) White was screwed Game 1079285. Knights also work well in conjunction with each other if you can get them connected. Very irritating for the opponent and very satisfying if your're dishing it out.

But if you've got an endgame where you're being attacked or trying to develop a position on both wings, you've got a problem if you only have a knight because you can't easily switch from one side to the other.
Knights also work great in conjunction with a bishop if you can get a windmill going.

So, as usual, it depend on the situation.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by CenterNut
nearly forgot.. the power of the knight and smothered checkmate.
It doesn't happen often, but it's a great reminder of why the good Lord created knights.

Game 1058604

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Skorj
It doesn't happen often, but it's a great reminder of why the good Lord created knights.

Game 1058604
Nice. A windmill AND a smothered mate with mate on the other side a move away. Must have been very satisfying. Black didn't play the best though.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.