Same, but bishops have a long range attack power and when put together, are a formidable opponent.
Knights are also good and are one of the best pieces in the game such as their ability to fork the most effectively.
And for pawns, they make the bulk of your army (A.K.A chess pieces) and are pretty awesome if they're in that arrowhead formation. Once more, you can also get a piece back if it manages to get to the other end.
In two words.... CHESS ROCKS!!!!! 
I'm a big fan of Knights -- especially their maneuverability and their ability to take an opponent by surprise, but definitely recognize that Bishops, especially a pair of them, are incredibly powerful. Bishops, I think, are harder to master. I've seen some endgame studies with Bishop moves I'd never find. Lots of subtlety and quiet moves.
As for pawns, don't neglect them. Most games I play are often decided over a pawn -- or sometimes even something as seemingly innocuous as a good pawn versus a bad one.
Bishops in open games, knights in closed.
Most beginners tend to like Knites more than bishops because as The Grobe said, playing correct bishop moves and finding the right way to deploy and manage them is more difficult. But if you put the effort in as I once did, you will begin to value your valient snipers even more so than your loyal steeds.
Philidor said souls are the pawns of chess, and I believe it. They are of utmost importance. You should learn the highly complex art of pawn play, when you do young grasshopper, you will learn the true value of the pawns!
souls are the pawns of chess
That's deep.
Horse, lol.
"Say what you see !" (Roy Walker)
Have to say I prefer a bishop to a knight. I overvalue my bishops to the point where, if my opponent has, say, a bishop and a knight and I have two knights, I consider myself losing, all else equal.
Pawns are the simplest pieces to move, but probably the most difficult pieces to control well. Quite a few high-level games are decided around who's pawn moves are most accurate I find.
Unless you're Tal of course, who used to sac pawns because they were "in the way".
I prefer bishop in start of a game and horse in final, especially if i have just one. When my oponent have, for example, just the white bishop, i organize my game in black pictures, especially the King.
Have to say I prefer a bishop to a knight. I overvalue my bishops to the point where, if my opponent has, say, a bishop and a knight and I have two knights, I consider myself losing, all else equal.
Pawns are the simplest pieces to move, but probably the most difficult pieces to control well. Quite a few high-level games are decided around who's pawn moves are most accurate I find.
Unless you're Tal of course, who used to sac pawns because they were "in the way".
If they're in the way of an attack that precludes the necessity for an endgame I suppose this is OK. I just wish I could see like Tal when this was the case.
I feel like a bishop is much less useful then are horses, especially in the middle of the battles. They can kill suddenly-poor rooks!-but horses are so dangerous, they prowl around our most important combat members. And about pawns, I wish i could give more attention to them: I recognize they are pretty important but i often let them aside and when i see, it's too late...