Is the K bishop worth more than the Q Bishop??

Bear with me on this..... I personally believe that the bishop pair is worth more than a knight and bishop (like most people). I also believe that a bishop in general is worth slightly more than a knight (not always). But my Q is, should we (partically in the opening stages) regard the K bishop as stronger than the Q bishop?? We all know that at the start of a game, blacks weakest point is f7? well the K bishop is the piece that usually attacks this sq, also the K bishop is capable of fianchetto around the white king, does this make it a stronger piece than the other? i only ask because we always seem to see our 2 bishops as equal pieces, when in fact, they often serve different roles....any thought? my point is, when looking at possible trades, should we have it in our minds that the K bishop may actually be worth more than previously thought??

I haven't ever thought about this before, but now I've got the idea I love the

K horse better.

As for the K bishop, I love it MUCH more!

I think this is a good question. But I think it depends on the opening system. I often play the Nimzo-Larsen attack in which White plays 1.b3 2.Bb2. The queen's Bishop (Dark Squared Bishop = DSB) sets the course of the game on White's second move and it's influence continues throughout most of those games. Often the LSB is exchanged early in the game for the Knight on c6 even though it is usually White's good Bishop. In the KIA it seems White's king Bishop is the influential one. In the NID Black often exchanges the DSB early, leaving the LSB to finish the game. Personally I favor White openings which include a fianchetto of the DSB = queen's Bishop"

From Wikipedia:

"According to Burgess, Lasker (in his book Lasker's Chess Manual) gave these relative values for the early part of the game (Burgess 2000:491):
rook pawn: ½
knight pawn: 1¼
bishop pawn: 1½
central pawn: 2
knight: 4½
queen bishop: 4½
king bishop: 5
queen rook: 6
king rook: 7
queen: 11"

Short answer: NO.

There are openings, ex. Sicilian - Grand Prix Attack, where the Kingside Bishop is almost useless and you'd be happy to trade it ASAP. But there are other openings, like when you fianchetto the Kingside Bishop and then castle short, where the Kingside Bishop is absolutely critical to your efforts towards winning. It depends on the position.

This is a good thread.

Generally I use the King's Bishop and Knight more defensively than I would the Queen's. In general my King's Bishop is Fianchetto'd and my Knight is defending the rook pawn on h2 after I have Castled. I try to set up a good defensive position around that and my Queen's side is usually the one with the initiative in attacking. So me personally, I believe my King's Bishop is worth more relatively speaking.

I think those that say it depends on the position are correct. I play the english opening a lot and the GM that showed me the opening told me that it was by far more valuable then the other 3 minor pieces and it doesn't really move very much.

The relative value of any piece depends wholly on the position.  In some positions a single pawn will become the most valuable piece on the board.  In other positions you will sac both your rooks for the opponent's bishop's or knights and then your remaining minor pieces will dominate the position.

I have never heard of the light squared bishop being more valuable than the dark squared bishop from the start position.  In certain positions it may have a bigger role, and then it would be more valuable in that situation.

Also beware of the idea that 2 bishops are stronger than knight and bishop.  YOu have to know when and where that is true.  Even in open positions, in which the bishop pair is usually strong, a knight with a decent outpost can run circles around a bishop pair. And of course, in closed positions the bishop pair is almost useless, so again it depends on the position.