The thing about bishop vs knight endgames

Hi,

After reading informations about bishops being valued a little bit higher then knights, as a general rule, I was in a stage  where I started to think about this. As I was trying improve my strategical play, I started to never trade a bishop on a knight if I didnt feel any value out of it. More exactly if I was feeling the trade is even, and I dont win material or a positional advantage like doubled pawns or isolated pawns after a BvsK trade, I didnt trade. 

This aproach led to a lot of endgames where I had a bishop vs knight. And more than half of times I had really bad positions in such endings. The main problem was the fact that other player put all pawns on opposite colour of my bishop, while he still had targets on my pawns. Knight is slower, but can attack both colours and I have only one bishop, and can defend only once colour.  I am aware of the fact that if there are pawns on both sides of the board the bishop is better, even is such scenarios I had problems vs a knight. 

Is that a sign of misunderstanding such endgames, or what am I missing?

However, if modern chess has taught us anything it is that there are no general rules in chess. Concrete positional considerations are often much more important than the general rules. If an exchange accomplishes a certain goal, there is no reason not to go for it. Determining whether a bishop exchange is justified or not is usually a trademark of a strong player with very good strategical understanding.

Probably the most famous exchange of the bishop for a knight happens in the Nimzo-Indian defence. For instance, in the Sämisch variation, after

1 d4 Nf6

2 c4 e6

3 Nc3 Bb4

4 a3

Here Black voluntarily plays 4 .. Bxc3 and after 5 bxc3

White has a doubled c-pawns that will be a target in the future. On the other hand, Black has given up the defender of his dark squares and White will try to exploit that fact (and his greater central control) to mount a kingside attack.

A double-edged decision typical of modern and dynamic opening play.

Also, for instance, there is a variation of the Modern defence that goes:

1 e4 g6

2 d4 Bg7

3 Nf3 d6

4 Bc4 Nf6

5 Qe2 0–0

6 0–0 Bg4

With his last move, Black intends to give up his bishop for a knight in the case of

7 h3 Bxf3

8 Qxf3

The point is that now the defender of the d4 pawn is removed. After

8… Nc6 (attacking the d4 pawn)

9 c3 (defending) e5!

Black either forces the exchange on e5, winning the bishop back with equality (after 10 dxe5), or he forced White to close the position with 10 d5, after which the advantage of the bishop pair is not that important (bishops need open diagonals to display their full potential).

So, long story short, the answers:

• No
• Usually no
• It depends

Are all valid. It is up to you to choose the opening variation you like and decide whether such an exchange is worth making or not.

This trade has a specific idea behind it, of exploiting later on the double c pawns. This means the trade is not even, and black get some compensation. 

The thing here is, most of information I saw and red on imbalances of bishop vs knights, were obvious patterns where bishops are better than knights and where knights are better than bishops. However the game often doesnt get us to patterns of obvious dominace of one minor piece over another. So there, as a general rule, bishops are considered a little bit better according to books and grandmasters words. Following this information I got more endgames of me having a bishop and opponent a knight. But more often I was getting in trouble instead of getting ahead with a bishop. I am thinking, I dont understand too well this endgames, but also I wanted to hear some opinions of good players on such endgames. 

In general the higher the player the more they try to hang on to the bishop pair. That tells us a lot.

Note we are talking about a pair of bishops. A knight and a bishop vs two knights is not usually an advantage.

In openings like the Nimzo Indian, Bogo Indian, and French Winawer where I trade off a bishop for a knight early in the game. The reason this works is because I am able to lock up the pawn structure so the bishops have little scope while my knights find strong outpost. Playing this way is reasonable. Otherwise hang on to your pair.

 It depends upon the opening you play. Some opening leads to a closed game and some others lead to open gane. In the open game bishops have upper hand and in closed game knights.

And of all pieces knight is the “king" of forking. 

Another upperhand for Knight is when it is placed in dark square it can control light squares ( atmost 8 of them and sometimes more due to forking threat) , and when placed in light square it can control dark square. But a light square bishops can control only light squares and vice versa.

The choice of exchanging bishop for knight lies in you know. If you did give ur bishop for knights make the position closed and force your opponent into crampy position. You may get initiative.

Don’t focus on pieces, focus on the board; play the board, not the piece.

The answer depends entirely on the situation and your style of play. Generally in chess both knights and bishops have equal importance.

There is no true answer to this, but here are some general observations that are commonly agreed upon by strong players:

• Bishops are stronger in open positions with few pawns on the board, especially if you have the bishop pair and especially in endgames.
• Knights are stronger in closed positions, where the pawns are locked against each other.
• Having the bishop pair against a knight and a bishop is usually a slight advantage in middle games. Against the knight pair it is less clear.
• A knight that can be anchored in the center of the board (protected by a pawn) is often stronger than a bishop.
• A knight anchored in an advanced position in the enemy camp (typically on squares like e6, d6, d3 or e3) is often very strong, even as strong as a rook.
• A bishop is usually stronger than a knight in an open endgame, especially if the side with the bishop has a passed wing pawn.
• A knight is often stronger than a bishop in endgames with static pawn structures. This theme is called "good knight versus bad bishop.”
• The value of knights go up in blitz games or in time trouble, as their movements are harder to calculate and predict.
• Rooks cooperate better with a bishop than a knight.
• Queens cooperate better with a knight than a bishop.

If there is a pawn race you need a long range piece like the bishop, but all end games are different. Bishop is considered slightly more valuable. I would say probably the problem likely wasn't spesifically in the bishop vs knight situation, but the actual end game play. Analyse your end games, see where you went wrong. Sparing the bishop (pair) is a good idea most of the time but its important to understand the position so you can evaluate when to trade.

You might take a look at these positions extracted from Ludek Pachman’s book.

https://lichess.org/study/wwGqENHg

Can you post an example of these endgames?

#1

"I started to never trade a bishop on a knight if I didnt feel any value out of it." ++ That is right.

"or a positional advantage like doubled pawns" ++ doubled pawns are no justification for BxN 

"The main problem was the fact that other player put all pawns on opposite colour of my bishop" ++ You have to put your pawns on the opposite color of your bishop. Either the opponent does not interlock his pawns, then the position is open and your bishop dominates the knight, or he interlocks and then his pawns are on the color of your bishop.

"I have only one bishop, and can defend only once colour."
++ Try to hold on to your bishop's pair, i.e. in BB vs. BN do not trade your bishop. Already while you have BB vs. BN put your pawns on the opposite color of his bishop, so when he trades bishops, you will be left with your good bishop, not on the color of your pawns.
If you have only one bishop, avoid trading all rooks. Rook and bishop coordinate well as the rook can cover the squares not accessible by the bishop.