Depends completely on the position and it makes no logical sense to favor one piece more than the other. Search the forums for many a variant on this thread topic.
when should I trade a bishop for a knight
Sort:
sgt_pepper wrote:
In my games, I avoid trading a bishop for a knight like it's the black plaugue. Is this a mistake. The bishop just seems so much more valuble, and a much better long term choice. When is it a good idea. Are there any players still that value the knight more than the bishop and suceed in his playing?
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044723
This a Spassky-Fischer game from the 72 World Championship, I found it helpful to study to see when a knight is more effective than a bishop. Around move 17 or so is when it is the most instructive. The white bishops are restricted by pawns, allowing the black knight to lead the attack.
In the end, you want one of the following combinations(assuming that you HAVE to trade stuff away):
1 bishop and 1 knight
2 bishops
You typically DONT want to wind up trading away both bishops and have your two knights left. They are awkward and slow in attack. Simply put they are harder to pull off the mate with(even with lots of help).
If the position is totally closed anyway - it favors knights. When bishops are all locked in they lose their strength - the control of long diagonals.
as said by Shivsky, depends on the position.. but if you want to see a cool game (the greatest chess game of all time IMO) where white trades off both(!) bishops for knights, check out Ivanchuk-Kasparov Linares 91
In most circumstances the bishop is better than the knight, however there are circumstances in which you would want to trade a bishop for a knight. Here are several of them
When it gives your opponent a weakness (i.e. recapturing gives your opponent doubled pawns, opens up a hole in his/her defense, or gives him/her a weak kingside.)
When his knight is placed on a strong outpost and/or your bishop is a bad bishop
When you are significantly ahead in material
Open position = Bishop is better
Closed position = Knight is better
Just a generalization
Closed position = Knight is better
Just a generalization
In an end game where you might need to attack squares of both colors a knight may be better than a single bishop.
Dec 23, 2016
0
#10
These discussions usually consider the position in terms of static considerations--open versus closed, for example. However, it worth noting that Vladimir Kramnik, one of the leading practitioners of the bishop pair, will often exchange a bishop for knight in open positions when it helps maintain the initiative.
can we log into old version
how to// can we log into old version
trade your bishops in and you'll get back to v2
Dec 1, 2022
0
#14
Although this thread is too old just thought of sharing my views:
Keeping one bishop and a knight is always the ideal thing. But after a few glasses of wine, you are playing Chess then the first thing to do is to get rid of opposition knights as soon as possible 
B + B > B + N > N + N
Dec 1, 2022
0
#16
i prefer to keep knights, but its pretty much dependant on position, you have to keep the thing whatever position demands.
Dec 2, 2022
0
#17
There’s no rule about this. It depends on the position. If the center is all locked up with your oppnent’s knight outposted on the 6th rank, you better hope you can trade a bishop for it😁 Many such cases.
May 31, 2023
0
#18
I think that it is okay to trade your bishop for a knight in some positions, but not to trade both your bishops for knights, as two bishops can easily overpower two knights
if the knight is made of gold.
In my games, I avoid trading a bishop for a knight like it's the black plaugue. Is this a mistake. The bishop just seems so much more valuble, and a much better long term choice. When is it a good idea. Are there any players still that value the knight more than the bishop and suceed in his playing?