It all depends on the position. Open positions favor bishops, closed ones knights. I generally consider the bishop more powerful because of it's longer range. However, a knight is a formidable weapon used correctly. Most players give the bishop a 3.5. value and the knight 3. Never forget in certain positions a pawn is stronger than a queen!
Depending on your long range plans in a game you decide which minor piece to keep, which to exchange. In a recent game I traded a bishop and a knight for a rook and a pawn, plus superior pawn structure and leaving opponent with a bad bishop.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoGot to disagree with you here.
Never forget in certain positions a pawn is stronger than a queen!
Name one position that favors a pawn over a Queen. I sure can't think of one. A queen has more capabilities than does a pawn, and the best that a pawn could produce if elevated in rank is to become a Queen.
You logic is flawed.
Originally posted by shortcircuitSometimes a pawn promoting to a knight gives check and a mating combination results or the check saves you from defeat. Other times, a Queen would lead to stalemate and promoting to a rook is the only way to win. A crucial pawn can be worth more than a queen.
Got to disagree with you here.
Name one position that favors a pawn over a Queen. I sure can't think of one. A queen has more capabilities than does a pawn, and the best that a pawn could produce if elevated in rank is to become a Queen.
You logic is flawed.
The answer depends on the position, is what you will get from most people. But players are allowed to have a preference in the matter. All else equal, I prefer the lone knight to the lone bishop; first, for the ability to attack squares of each color, and second for being the only piece whose checks cannot be blocked.
Originally posted by dirtysniperIf positional gain is disregarded, then there is no definite answer to your question. It is an even trade. It is no more logical to grant the trade than refuse it.
Assuming a knight and a bishop are both valued at 3 and positional gain aside, is losing a bishop to gain a Knight a logical material exchange?
Generally, the plusses and minuses are:
>Bishops cover squares of one colour only. Knights can cover squares of both colours.
>Bishops can move from one side of the board to the other quickly. It takes several moves for a knight to cover that distance.
>Bishops can be blocked by their own pawns (a "bad bishop"😉, but knights can hop over any piece.
>Usually, in an ending with pawns on both sides of the board, bishops are better. With pawns on only one side of the board, knights are better.
>In the opening, they are rreally the same value, in the middlegame it depends upon the position, in the endgame the above generalities usually apply.
>But players have personal preferences. Bobby Fischer was well known for preferring bishops.
>
Originally posted by shortcircuitI'm all about flawed logic, but think about it. There are positions in which you have an idle queen and an active pawn wreaking havoc. That's what I am referring to, not value. The reality is that your most active pieces are better than you passive ones. Emanuel Lasker is who said a pawn can be as mighty as the queen. I'll go with Lasker.
Got to disagree with you here.
Name one position that favors a pawn over a Queen. I sure can't think of one. A queen has more capabilities than does a pawn, and the best that a pawn could produce if elevated in rank is to become a Queen.
You logic is flawed.
Originally posted by nkvityazThe three black queens are impotent compared to the pawn. They are not equal, but far inferior. I've made the point, accurately, that in certain bizarre positions, a pawn is better than a queen. But without imminent checkmate--in normal circumstances--a queen is the maximum of a pawn's potential power.
But in that position a pawn and queen would be equal, it doesn't favour the pawn. Either of them would get the job done.
Getting back to the original question: If we set aside positional considerations, chess has no logic. The answer to the original poster's question is no.