Bishop vs. Knight

I only want opinions not advise, feel free to use sarcasm.

In many games I play, my opponent isn't afraid to give up a bishop for a knight in the beginning. I, on the other hand, prefer to sacrafice one of each. Good strategy?

I know it depends on the situation, but I think that having one of each can be more of an advantage than two of one of the other.

Also, do you think it is effective to go queen for queen in the early going?

Look at this game and see what I mean (please no suggestions as this game is in progress)
Game 1563856

A pair of bishops is far more effective than any other pair of minor pieces as a rule of thumb.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
A pair of bishops is far more effective than any other pair of minor pieces as a rule of thumb.

It's a rule of thumb. There are some positions where knights are clearly better than bishops however they are the minority.

that is the first time i heard a view like that. i prefer asking questions to reading books and websites because it is hard evidence from people who play a lot. Thanks for your comments.

Anyone else?

Originally posted by Whats goin on eh
that is the first time i heard a view like that. i prefer asking questions to reading books and websites because it is hard evidence from people who play a lot. Thanks for your comments.

Anyone else?

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32066

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32066

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1115142

Originally posted by Whats goin on eh
i didn't realize another thread was on this topic.

Whats goin on eh, out!

my 2cents :
Never be afraid to exchange (B for K) if you think that is best for the specific position you're playing.

When you're "giving" away your Bishop for a Knight you actually "lose" the "bishop pair".
It's perfectly ok to lose the B pair if you get some compensation for it, e.g. double the opponent's pawns as in the Nimzo-Indian opening.

The same is true vice versa, if you can "win" the B pair, that is trade your Knight for an opponent's Bishop, go for it, even if you lose a tempo in the process. (provided that you are not exposing yourself to danger/s!).

I've heard a lot of players, beginners mostly, comment that they like the two knights because they can support and defend each other. While this may be true, they have no flexibility in doing so. One of the most glaring limitations of the knight is the fact that it's the only piece that cannot move and still maintain the defense of a certain square. Everytime it moves, it gives up control of all the squares it was guarding, and assumes control of 8 new squares (or whatever the case may be). This makes it a substandard defender of other pieces. Also, more often than not, two knights usually just end up stepping all over each other.

Even at my limited level, I tend to prefer giving up one of my knights rather than one of my bishops. One knight can substitute for another in the same position if I really feel the need, whereas once I've lost a bishop, I can't get it back.

I see an overwhelming agreement for bishops

to comment on the suggestion of reading;

I read books to gain scientific knowledge, everything else, i learn from others. I don't have access to a large selection of books where i live and i find i get better results by posting here.

Some more food for thought:
the Tal 'The Magician' (I think it was him, or was it another Blitz master?!) once said that in Blitz chess - Knights are better than Bishops (for attack).