Again, it depends on the position. Knights are better than Bishops in closed positions. Bishops are better than Knights in endgames with pawns on both sides of the board. Knights tend to be worse if they don't have advanced support points and Bishops tend to be bad if the are center pawns of it's same color.
Personally, I prefer Knights over Bishops because they can attack in more directions and can jump pieces.
Originally posted by bishops r coolClosed position just means that most of the pawns are still on the board and the center of the board is cluttered. In this position, the bishops don't have much room to manuever while the Knights can move around more freely.
I don't know much of the lingo to chess. What's a closed position and a end game?
So 93confirmed you would sacrifice a bishop to kill an opponets knight?
End game basically means the end of a game where most pieces are off the board and conclusion is in sight. For example, two pawns and a King against three pawns and a King.
Yes, I would capture an opponent's Knight if need be but it depends on the position. You shouldn't take it just because it's your turn to move.
more often than not, a bishop is better... but on occasion a knight is more valuable because it is not restricted to one colour and can jump over other pieces in its way.
If I had a choice to either have 4 bishops or 4 knights (instead of 2 of each) I'd say 4 bishops FOR SURE!
Actually, I like them both equally.
Originally posted by bishops r coolOne queen does not equal one rook! but does one bishop equal one knight? The differences between a knight and a bishop are pretty blatant, but the equality between them is very subtle.
If I had a choice between 3 queens or 1 queen and 2 rooks I would choose 3 queens for sure
... oh... sorry, dumb comment
It depends on the position.
Sometimes Bs are even better than Rs
Game 3172815 illustrates this point where my opponent offered me a rook (move 21) that I could not afford to take as my black B was far more important. I still lost!