21 ( +1 | -1 ) Which do you prefer...Aside from issues about good and bad pieces relative to the position in a game (and excluding the end game because this just complicates the question), which do you in general prefer, bishops or knights?
79 ( +1 | -1 ) I love the knights.Few lower-rated amateurs I have played can really use the knights well. But as is well-known and in virtually every chess-training book, knights stationed on advanced, unassailable outposts can dominate the board and even be stronger than a rook.
By this I mean knights stationed deep in enemy territory on the opponent's weak squares, (squares unprotected by enemy pawns.) They should also be supported by a pawn, and Nimzovich recommends that they be stationed on an open file also and supported by a rook.
Here is an example from one of my ongoing games, board #259806 White's knights rule the land, even with all other pieces still on the board.
20 ( +1 | -1 ) Reassess your chess.Great book, Tulkos! I learned alot from that book, read it about ten times! And congratulations on breaking the 1500 rating!!! That's amazing, especially for your young age. :)
31 ( +1 | -1 ) Asidefrom isssues etc. etc. I prefer a Bishop. If properly manouvred it springs a great energy, and is a powerful long-range piece. When I sacrifice the exchange, I'd like to get an opponent's Bishop. Then I feel very confortable with 2 Bishops vs. Rook and Bishop, or better Rook and Knight ;)
14 ( +1 | -1 ) end gameknight and king versus king = draw
bishop and king versus king = draw
knight and bishop must be equal.
27 ( +1 | -1 ) good point by Brunetti.I take the bishops and leave my opponents the knights in many games, simply because their long-range is very powerful, particularly in endgames, I noiticed bishops GENERALLY tend to beat out knights, if for no other reason but their long-range..
20 ( +1 | -1 ) humph.Knight vs king draw,2 knights vs king draw,queen vs 2 knights draw.Queen is useless.makes the same amount of sense that knight and bishop must be equal.
14 ( +1 | -1 ) I prefer...Two Bishops in an open position... But if the position is closed I feel better with two Knights... So either-or with me... It just depends on the position...
13 ( +1 | -1 ) Bishop - Knight - King...Knight and Bishop together are mating material... It is just one of the hardest mates to force... But it can be done against a lone King...
26 ( +1 | -1 ) ..listen,doormat:king and 2 knights versus king=draw king and 2 bishops versus king =win the bishop is certainly stronger than the knight! actually,its the Bishop Pair that is the key.2 bishops are at least 0.5 units stronger than two knights on an open board.
16 ( +1 | -1 ) 2 knights can mate a lone king.only the person with a lone king has to make very bad moves to lose. imagine for white- Kb6, Ne5, Ne6 and for black- Kb8 1.Nc6+, Ka8; 2.Nc7++ but if black had made 1... Kc8, it would be a draw.
41 ( +1 | -1 ) i prefer...bishops in open play and knights in closed play. you can still win a game with just a bishop and king if your opponent has a bishop, pawn and king if your opponent plays awful. place your king on say a3 and your bishop on g1, now place your opponents king on g7, his pawn on h7 and his bishop on g8. its your opponents move, he plays Kh8 then you play Bd4#
please correct me if im wrong.
119 ( +1 | -1 ) Yes, as statedby gooftrooper the general rule is that in a closed position a knight or knights have an advantage. The bishop(s) does much better in a open position. In playing against a knight or bishop the strategy should be to try to close off or open up the position depending on what you have (there are several other rules but that is the main one--and remember in chess, rules and principles are secondary to positional logic: positions not rules determine outcomes). That brings us to a critical question: is it easier to open up or close off a position? In general, as the game progresses it is easier to open positions. This is why the bishop is typically stronger than the knight in the endgame and why many advanced players feel that the bishop is worth as much as 3.5. Accordingly, I will always trade a knight for a bishop and will try to hold on to at least one bishop for the endgame. If you end up with two Bs against two Ns, you will have the superior game. One way to improve your prospects with a knight against a lone bishop in the endgame is to keep the knight in the middle of the board--and of course the opposite is true: if you have a bishop against a knight in the endgame try to force the knight into duty on or near the edge of the board.
23 ( +1 | -1 ) .if you have the knight try to keep it on the opposite coloured square to your opponents bishop, but renember a knight will aways move to the opposite coloured square in its next move (black, white, black, white etc...)
85 ( +1 | -1 ) There are two words that are bad in chess: never and always. It is true that in most positions, bishops are a little better than knights; however, it's all dependent upon the position. In some positions a knight can be worth a rook, in some it is worth nothing because it is trapped, etc. For example, after the moves 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. g3 0-0 5. Bg2 d6 6. 0-0 c5 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. d5 Na5 9. Nd2 a6 10. Qc2 Rb8 11. b3 b5 12. Bb2 bxc4 13. bxc4 Black's best is 13... Bh6!, aiming to trade off his 'powerful' fianchettoed bishop for White's 'passive' d2 knight, merely for more control of the critical c4 square. And, of course, white usually responds 14. f4!, weakening his position to maintain the knight against the bishop (14. e3? Bf5).
The point is, although bishops *usually* tend to be better than knights, one has to assess all the characteristics of a certain position rather than just making a general statement.