Which is Better Knight or Bishop?

I enjoy the Knight. Please explain why you like your piece better than the other.

A bishop, on average, is worth slightly more than a knight. It's only a myth that these pieces are equal. 

The difference is explained simply - in some positions, a knight is stronger than a queen (when you deliver a smothered mate). However, in the overwhelming number of plausible positions, the queen is stronger. So that's why a queen is worth much more than a knight.

The bishop is stronger than the knight in most cases, but only slightly. 

*There is the bishop pair - each of your pieces tend to get in each other's way a bit, reducing their overall effectiveness. The 2 bishops have perfect synergy, and hence the bishop pair is a solid positional advantage.

*Bishops are stronger as the board clears up. The bishop  can be as strong as a rook in some positions (it controls 13 squares max, and a rook 14 squares max). A knight does not have this kind of potential. 

*The activity of the bishop is much more variable than that of the knight. Sometimes, it's almost a rook in power, and sometimes it's a pawn. Hence, if the pawn structure is fluid, and no way is there to force a locked position, typically the "future" of the game belongs to the player with the bishop. 

---

In speed chess, I prefer the knight. 

I should note that at your level, none of this matters - dropping a pawn or any amount of material generally makes this all irrelevant. 

In chess, which piece is stronger — the Bishop or the Knight? - Quora

 

Ryan CookSoftware Engineer at Jornaya

 

Worked at Jornaya - The Power of Intent

 

Lived in Philadelphia, PA

 

1.6m answer views22.8k this month

 

Published WriterLifehacker

 

Ryan Cook, USCF ~1900

Written Jan 17, 2016

 

"I just want to add that there is an excellent and entertaining book on this subject. I picked up a copy a few years ago at the World Team Tournament in NJ: Bishop Versus Knight: Steve Mayer

This book describes the relative advantage of each minor piece, with a good bit of chess history included."

Hopefully the above reference may help you.   ---Skinnyhorse.

     Here is another source that I found on the internet:

In chess, which piece is stronger — the Bishop or the Knight? - Quora

Still, that can be said for any piece!

*The knight is better than the queen when it gives smothered mate.

*The queen is better everywhere else (pretty much). 

*The knight is better than the rook where it is posted on an advanced outpost, while the rook cannot move onto an open file.

*The rook is better when etc. etc.

The point is that the bishop should be better in a smaller majority, but still a majority of positions, but it doesn't matter at the beginner / weak intermediate level, because the small difference between these pieces is always obscured by tactical blunders and such. 

It all depends on nature of position and phrase of games. You have to decide based on position, which knight or bishop you want to keep or which to trade. Generally bishop is considered slightly better than knight especially bishop pair. But you will see lots of games where GMs also trade bishop for knight, so it depends. If there is single bishop and single Knight then sometimes knight can expose weaknesses of opposite color and also if in endgame all pawns are on the same side knight can be better. If pawns are locked in a way that opponent's pawn on opposite color square, then knight can easily maneuver to win your pawns and match generally. Bishop better than knight cases are easily found so no need for me to give examples.

So moral of the story don't get obsessed with any peice. Do what position demands try to exchange bad peices for opponent's good peices, whether its knight or bishop.

Recently I played a game where the material was even other than I had a Knight v.s. a Bishop. I was able to make her Bishop a ghost, while I was free to threaten her remaining pieces. So in an open game such as this ( we both had a Rook also ) is a Knight better?

The placement of pawns is very important in determining whether both bishop and knight operate effectively. 

There is such a thing as an exchange sacrifice - it means that minor pieces can often be more effective than rooks. 

When comparing bishop v. knight, the difference is much closer even. So of course it's possible - when you can clearly tell which piece is better, then there's nothing to think about.

However, I'm saying that in general, when there's no clear idea as to which piece is better, I would take the bishop over the knight, because it gives me more chances for higher activity (the bishop's potential is higher than that of the knight), and I consider it a material advantage thus. 

Remember though, that if you've dropped even a single pawn, this all becomes pretty much useless.. and taking a brief glance at your rapid games, in no game has the material remained equal for the greater part.

Has Dexterll been here since 2017? Maybe go to

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/who-is-the-most-powerful-bishop-or-knight

for a more recent discussion.

The tower is stronger.

I like the knight because it's very cheeky but bishops sometimes can be good because it can be very useful for pinning ...

It's hard to say but evaluating their strengths could help you make a choice

For example a bishop could pin a piece to a king and a knight is useful for finding forks.

I find the moves of the knight tricky and I hate having to deal with them in the end or middle games.

The bishops however are more easier to figure out Because they have a fixed path to follow so you could say that it's a weakness. It all comes down to having at least 1 of both still surviving till the end of middle game to have a balance.

'The weaker the player the more terrible the Knight is to him, but as a player increases in strength the value of the Bishop becomes more evident to him, and of course there is, or should be, a corresponding decrease in his estimation of the value of the Knight as compared to the bishop.'
- Capablanca

KNIGHT

SDA