If you look through the past threads there are plenty of discussions about this,even if there's no real answer to your question:it's like asking ''What came before,the egg or the chicken?''
In chess terms it really depends by the current position:open spaces,better bishops,closed positions,better knights.
Needless to say that is better to have them in pairs,having a knight and a bishop while your opponent has the pair is not much a good thing.
My two cents........
Edit: didn't see Drakken's post
You might want to try
http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice%20Nook
Look for articles on knights and/or bishops. You may do well to look at endgames involving these two pieces.
I have liked Heisman's articles so far.
Also, I liked Jeremy Silman's book "The Amateur's Mind", it has a chapter on this that I have read several times.
Basically, it depends on the situation, and which pieces you know better. And don't forget that two bishops are generally stronger than two knights (see Heisman's "Counting" ).
Not really answerable, in any way that makes sense.. but.. if you had to choose.. bishops. Particularly if you still have both of them.
More positions that arise on the board favor bishops over knights- on the other hand a number of players have made careers of creating situations where knights are better, and trading B for N.
The classical rule is that Knights are better in closed positions and Bishops in open ones. YMMV.
In the endgame there are some clearer rules- positions with pawns on both sides of the board favor the bish, positions with pawns on only one tend to favor the knight.
But.. does the knight have a good supported position deep in enemy territory?- makes all the difference sometimes.
Originally posted by Alpha10There is no one cut-and-dry answer. It all depends on the position on the board. Generally, if the position is closed (center is blocked by pawns) the knights are preferred, since they can jump over the locked pawns. If the position is open, on the other hand (center is clear of pawns) then the bishop is usually superior, because its long-range power comes to its full potential. Then there are positions that are semi-open but have the potential to either close up or become fully open. In this case you really don't want to commit yourself to either minor piece unless you can also control what kind of position you'll have. You also have to watch out for things like getting stuck with a bad bishop (bishop on the same color square as your center pawns), although if you can make your bad bishop active, it isn't the end of the world.
Which are better?
In the endgame, a lot of the same principles apply, with a few changes. If there are groups of pawns (especially passed pawns) on both sides of the board, the bishop is often superior because of its long-range quality. If eveything is taking place on one side of the board, the bishop's long-range powers are moot and the knight's ability to get to squares of both colors takes on more importance. Just like in the middlegame, you want to avoid locking your pawns onto the same color of your bishop. But in the endgame, you also don't want to lock your pwans on the same color as your opponenet's bishop, because then they can come under attack from his bishop and you'll have to use a valuable piece to guard them.
Whew! Sorry if all you were looking for someone to respond "bishops" or "knights".
🙂
Edit: Dammit! Four people get in before I'm finsihed typinf my little "column"!😛
The thing is that it doesn't even quite mke sense to ask that about R vs Minor piece... there isnt atually sucha thing as a material advantage in hess- just positions with a better or worse evaluation. Thing is that in all but trivial positions, it is impossible to determine that evaluation... turns out that things like "material advantage", while essentially fictive, are what we _have to_ use to determine these things- and sometimes we're wrong. Look at Fischer's handling of Q and Pawn against 2 rooks... he proved that what was considered a material disadvantage ould be an advantage.
Course it's unlikely anyone will ever prove minor pieces are better than Rooks, except in very specific positions... but read some Petrosian games for those positions... they come up, and you can steer toward them- if you're Petrosian.