Bishops or kngihts

its been an age old duel througout the history of chess, the only two different peices with the same value, so it is only fair to ask,

which one is better>??

personally it depends on the position i would never relinquish a knight on a support point for a usless bhsiop and a fianchettoed scicilian bishop for a stray knight

but nonehteless what about in the onpenings when trade is at stakewhichi one do u prefer

i would only choose bishops over knights due to the reason of the possibilities of a bishop pair

Originally posted by Devastator27
...It's been an age old duel througout the history of chess...

And it's also been an age-old duel throughout the history of the RHP forums...

I think the position dictates heavily which piece is more useful but here are some points.

1. The longer the game goes, and the less pieces left on the board - the less restricted the knights become, so are moe useful

2. Knights are the only piece that can attack any other piece without fear of being themselves attacked.

3.Fianchettoed bishops are placed on the square which provides them with maximum influence, the player who has done so must ensure the centre remains open to maximise their potential.

4. Knight vs bishop in the endgame tends to be better for the knight but, as with all endgames, king placement will decide the game more so then either piece.

Originally posted by Devastator27
its been an age old duel througout the history of chess, the only two different peices with the same value, so it is only fair to ask,

which one is better>??

personally it depends on the position i would never relinquish a knight on a support point for a usless bhsiop and a fianchettoed scicilian bishop for a stray knight

but nonehteless what a ...[text shortened]... i would only choose bishops over knights due to the reason of the possibilities of a bishop pair

It is simple and you do not have to be chess expert to realize it; piece is as good as your abilities to exploit its qualities. Kasparov knight is far more skillfull than my queen etc.

As to particular question, it depends on position.

Read Jeremy Silman's book "The amateur's mind" ; Interplay beetween minor pieces (Battle beetween bishops and knight) with lots pros and cons of both pieces, strategic ideas and real game examples.

Just thought of another good point.
If you are going to be a piece down, it is better for that piece to be a knight then a bishop - your drawing chances are increased - especially if you can reduce the position to 2 knights vs bishop in an endgame.

Worth noting, however, that a knight, king and pawn are capable of delevering checkmate on any file. If a bishop is trying to support the wrong rooks pawn (I.E. The queening square is the opposite colour of the bishop) then it has become less useful.

Actually, they're both better.

Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
I think the position dictates heavily which piece is more useful but here are some points.

1. The longer the game goes, and the less pieces left on the board - the less restricted the knights become, so are moe useful

2. Knights are the only piece that can attack any other piece without fear of being themselves attacked.

3.Fianchettoed bis ...[text shortened]... knight but, as with all endgames, king placement will decide the game more so then either piece.

Well you are clearly better than me, so these guidelines obviously serve you well and I am cautious in challenging them, but whilst points 2 and 3 are undeniably true, I would offer an alternative view to points 1 and 4.
For point 1, I would say fewer pieces and hence more space often favours the bishop over the knight. The former is more mobile, and this is enhanced on an open board. Knights gain an advantage in more closed positions simply by being able to jump! Of course knights can control squares of either colour, but in many types of endgames they lack the control of multiple areas of the board, and cannot relocate as quickly as bishops.
For point 4, my understanding (as per the points above) was that bishops were a match for knights in the endgame and often (such as two bishops against any other combination) have a distinct edge. Of course, king placement is key here as you point out.

I tend to prefer a bishop over a knight
besides it is usually admitted that 2 bishops are superior to 2 knights

read in a book that 1 knight = 3,25 pawnas and 1 bishop = 3,4 pawns

read in a book that 1 knight = 3,25 pawnas and 1 bishop = 3,4 pawns[/b]

Not true. Or crappy book. Knight is actually worth 3.2578 pawns and Bishop 3.276 pawns, and pawn it self is worth 0.86 pawns 🙄

Originally posted by Policestate
Well you are clearly better than me, so these guidelines obviously serve you well and I am cautious in challenging them, but whilst points 2 and 3 are undeniably true, I would offer an alternative view to points 1 and 4.
For point 1, I would say fewer pieces and hence more space often favours the bishop over the knight. The former is more mobile, and th ...[text shortened]... other combination) have a distinct edge. Of course, king placement is key here as you point out.

The thing I was trying to get accross in point 1 which I probably did not do so well is that the knights have restricted movement because there is often something attacking the squares they are aiming for and they can only operate effectively at short range. A bishop can be sitting on the first or eight rank and still have a relatively influential part to play in the game but a knight there would be a defensive piece at best.

Point 4 I was referring to being a piece down - something that frequently happens on this site. Normally I would resign a piece down but if it has reached an endgame stage I would most of the time prefer to go up against an enemy knight then a bishop with my lone king. The only weakness the bishop has over the knight in the endgame is that a)It can only cover one colour b) if your opponent can get a position where you have a wrong colour rook pawn then even being a bishop up will still only draw you the game.

As a general rule, the more cluttered the board with pawns and pieces, the better the knight is, since it can jump over pieces and pawns. One bishop is almost always better than one knight in an endgame unless all of the pawns are on the same side of the board, in which case the knight might be better because it can go to a square of any color.

"It depends on the position" is of course the only truly correct response. Having said that...

1 knight = 1 bishop, but the bishop pair is worth an extra half pawn.

Bishop is better 65-75% of the time I think because of a tendency for the board to open up as the game progresses... A bishop is almost always better on an open board. The only time a Knight is better is when it has an FOB and threats like forks and checks.

two bishops over any other combination of two minor pecies are superior and are known as the bishop apir, teh bishop pair is worth around 7 or more points i think, and can own 2 kngihts, and opersonally a bishop is much better than a knight in an endgame

Originally posted by Devastator27
two bishops over any other combination of two minor pecies are superior and are known as the bishop apir, teh bishop pair is worth around 7 or more points i think, and can own 2 kngihts, and opersonally a bishop is much better than a knight in an endgame

none of that is true except the last part and thats only becuase you said "personally".