Really cracking your skull and storming your brain to figure out whether a Bishop's better or a Knight? To be frank, you needn't! Exactly, can you figure out why both have been given the same value in Chess? That is because you can't execute a Checkmate if you just have one Knight, or one Bishop. They have been rightly placed! Similarly, a Rook can do a mate with the assistance of the King, and the Queen, much easily! 

Both are equally important in a game. The only thing is, that you might find the Bishop more useful in the beginning, where you might try for quicker Checkmates, or threaten more pieces. The Knight does a good job in the beginning too, but is a great more useful towards the end, where you would be pleased to do some forks and gain piece advantages. Also, 'point to be noted', a Knight might have a whole lot of difficulty forking in the beginning, because of a crowd of the opponent army that might kick your Knight out. 

Now to analyze the reverse. A Bishop in the end could prove less efficient than a Knight. During the endgame/middlegame, the pieces are quite outside their normal positions, and rarely diagonally placed. They occupy the emptiness of the board, and make it difficult for the Bishop to Double-attack them. Knights do have a good centre control by Nc3, Nf3, Nc6 and Nf6, but have troubles in forking (as I already mentioned) between the crowd of enemy pieces. A good pawn placement can also defy a Knight's control and limit it's movements, where the only good choice would be to retreat. Also, the Knight is easily pinned to the Queen/King, and is the only piece that cannot capture the piece that pins it, in any circumstance. A good choice would be to protect the Knights till the end. 

Hence, we see that both the Knight and the Bishop are equally well in playing their part. Please don't be shy to comment. They are always welcome. It would be great to know others' opinions about this. 

Thank You and Merry Christmas! o<|:)

I have a interest in knights, in fact they are my favorite piece just because they move in a way that other pieces cannot.

Thanks, Paul, for the website. I would love to read it and find out more. 

Very interesting article, Strategic Play. I believe that each of the two pieces you've discussed embody a shared mentality of individual players - especially in the context of the Mid and End Game. Either piece may be used to great effect in "forking" exposed pieces yet the Knight is more highly valued due to it's flexibility.

This is a presumption made by many players. This evalution could possibly used in traps against those orthodox players who are mired in dogma surrounding the over-valuation of the Knight.

So, a knight is better than a bishop?

Absolutely!  Just compare their weapons:

I am trying to think of what my comments were from 16 months ago lol.

Boy, that Conquistador guy doesn't have a lot to say, does he?

I use to play better when I knew bishop's are better than knight .no one told me back then.this values and misconception's are for chess author's content to write in their patzer books

exactly!

I seem to vaguely recall you were cussing out all the moderators, and describing your various chess.com hacking programs in detail.

It depends ... knight is better in closed games and bishop is better in open games  

oh please, just please... 

I went to the woods because I wanted to live deliberately, I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, To put to rout all that was not life and not when I had come to die Discover that I had not lived.

I won't read this things anymore. Voilà, c'est ça  

Spiderman saying the f-word? 

Basically spamming. 

They got deleted because I complained against you 

And why would you guys bring this topic back now?