It depends. In an open game, the bishop performs better; whereas ina a closed game a knight does a better job. Also, if you wanna sac a bishop, always sac the "bad" one (your bad bishop is the one which moves on the same color to where most of your pawns are placed, because your pawns block it).
And personally, I prefer to have a bishop rather than a knight.
"...always sac the 'bad' one"?
No, a bad bishop is not necessarily weak nor inactive. Likewise, a good bishop is not necessary more advantageous than a bad bishop.
Again, it is all dependent on the position on the board. A bad bishop can be a critical piece behind its pawns or active in front of its pawn.
Don't equate good/bad bishops with desirable/undesirable.
BTW, good/bad is not determined by the color of most of the pawns. It is determined by the color of the center pawns.
Seems some of my concepts about bishops were a bit inaccurate. Thanks!
thank you both for your input
well, in the opening and midgame, it is not good to sacrifice knight for bishop.
In the endgame, if you are uncomfterbl' with the knight being there, it is a fair trade. I dont play with the knight.
A good rule for weaker players, is that bishops is better in open positions, and knights is better in closed positions.
I have read that Knight's only outweigh Bishops in two situations:
The first is a more of a permanent advantage (which can be turned into a passed pawn if the Knight is traded off), and should always be sought out.
The second though, is more of a temporary, dynamic advantage that will go away in time. You should use the second advantage to help creat the first advantage, i.e., turn a temporary one into a permanent one.
So I mean honestly, trading a Bishop for a Knight (as others have said) depends entirely on the position and being able to determine what the position will be like much farther into the game. You cannot just use an all purpose, universal rule of "always take out his Bishops with my own Knights so that I will have the Bishop pair left." That is too short sited (even though I see people doing it all the time).
...
Don't equate good/bad bishops with desirable/undesirable.
BTW, good/bad is not determined by the color of most of the pawns. It is determined by the color of the center pawns.
Actually pauix's definition of a bad bishop is correct.
pauix said: (your bad bishop is the one which moves on the same color to where most of your pawns are placed, because your pawns block it).
But it is correct that it doesn't have to be undesirable. But often it is.
There is more to a bad bishop than just being blocked by its own pawns, it is also that the bad bishop can not attack the opponent's pawns, while the opponent with the good bishop can attack your pawns.
This is an example of good bishop versus a bad bishop:
White is far better off because he has the good bishop. Black has a hard time. It certainly is NOT of any help to him that there are no center pawns. His bishop is almost useless, and because of that his position is terrible. White is doing fine and feels like a fish swimming smoothly in the water.
Bishops are better in positions like these:
Notice it's an open position, and all of black's pawns are on the same color as the white bishop, so white can go after them, make passed pawns, and win the game.
However, knights are better in positions like these:
The position is completely closed, and all of black's pawns are on the same color as his bishop, which is called a classical "bad bishop."
generally speaking, is it worth sacrificing a bishop to take out a knight?