A knight is worth MORE than a bishop

You had me at loose a bishop.

sorry,..typo

Just because a queen can't do it, doesn't magically make the knight's move better.

Knights will have just as much trouble with an interlocked wall of pawns, though indeed it will jump over a pawn chain nicely.

Yeah, sure, knights can attack 64 squares when it can get to them eventually. But on its best square, the knight can only go to 8 squares, and on its worst, 2. Bishops are 13 and 7 respectively. The bishop can get from one corner of the board to the other in 1 move, the knight takes 6. So I think that isn't a decicive superiority.

Knights can fork rather well, but knights can't pin or skewer or x-ray. Pins are the very heart of chess.

So I'd say it evens out really. Bishops are much better in open situations, and knights much better in closed.

I'm sure this has been written on extensively, and I think the answer is "it depends." Knights can be amazingly powerful and they can also be annoyingly unmanuverable. I don't hesitate to trade a bishop for a knight when I get some positional advantage out of it, but I wouldn't trade just because I think a knight is more powerful.

Here are some standard rules of thumb from "The Amateur's Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery" (J. Silman):

1. Both Bishops and Knights are worth 3 points each
2. Bishops are best in open positions where pawns don't block their diagonals.
3. Bishops are stronger in endgames due to its long range abilities.
4. The term "Bad Bishop" means that your Bishop is situated on the same color as your center pawns.
5. A Bishop's weakness is its "one color" weakness, that is why the Bishop-pair is highly valued negating this weakness.
6. Knights excel in closed positions with locked pawns.
7. Knights usually stand better in the center of the board.
8. Knights need outpost squares or "support points" to be effective. They are the strongest on the 5th and 6th rank, if entrenched on the 6th rank it can be nearly equal to a rook.
9. Knights are superior to Bishops in endgames where all of the pawns are on one side of the board since the long range power of the bishop has no meaning and the knight can go to squares of either color.
10. The way to beat Knights is to deprive them of any advanced support points, if this is accomplished they are inferior to Bishops.

One statistical study of master games suggested that the value of the knight and the value of the bishop average out to be about 3.25 points each. Of course, situation is the all-important factor. In a closed pawn structure, bishops can become nearly worthless while knights may be able to work around that. In an open pawn structure with pawns on both sides of the board, the bishop can come into its own moving from one side to the other more quickly than the knight; while with pawns on only one side, the knight is far less limited and the bishop's scope becomes less important. Finally, having BOTH the bishops when you opponent does not, is a strength.

SO, ... the answer is not simple, is it? This has been attested to by the fact that masters have been arguing about the relative value of the pieces for many, many years. Perhaps the best minor piece is the one you can handle the best.

http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

The method of attacking this problem was to start with a large database of about 925,000 games, then to select out of only those games where both players were listed as having FIDE ratings of at least 2300 (the standard for the FIDE Master title), so that my conclusions would be based on the play of reasonably strong players. That still left me with nearly 300,000 games. Using the "ChessBase" program (other database programs also have the needed capability), I would select the games with various specified material imbalances and with specified pieces being present or absent. Then I would record the average difference between performance rating and player rating, rather than using the raw scoring percentage, as that might be biased if stronger players tended to have one side of the imbalance.

OK, what did I discover? Let's start with the age-old question of bishop vs. knight. The conclusions are clear and consistent: . . . an unpaired bishop and knight are of equal value (within 1/50 of a pawn, statistically meaningless), so positional considerations (such as open or closed position, good or bad bishop, etc.) will decide which piece is better.

Obviously pancakes.

It depends what type of game I'm in the mood to play. If I go with drunken cowboys against religious zealots, I know I need to keep the game closed as long as possible. Once a knight has an outpost, it can be amazingly influential. It's a great blocker too.

Since it usually means increased attention to defense, I would often be playing black...but not always. I'd get something in return for giving my opponent a pair of religious zealots...for example, a hole in my opponent's defense, doubled pawns, and a half open file. Then the aim is to keep the doubled pawns relatively weak and seize that half open file as soon as possible. I have to keep a strong pawn structure.

Maybe with more skill, I'd change my mind but for now, I find it entertaining to use just knights on occasion.

Many years ago there was a guy at the chess club I went to who was expert level and said he preferred two knights to two bishops. He would throw bishops, knights and pawns on the board and show you why.

I was weaker than him, but he could do it with players his own strength as well. I wish I could remember how he did it!

I cant believe no-one ever mentions crumpets

Well, I'm leaning more towards the pancakes.

Give me the bishop pair, sucka!

This thread is making me sick:

Let us not forget French Toast. 

Sante ! ... orangehonda  and Niven 42 were best laughs, categorically .

 Picture please!