Depends from the certain situation on chess board. Bishop is consider more stronger then horse but the last one is more insidious of course...
Who is the most powerful ??? Bishop or knight???
Sort:
THE_BEAST001 wrote:
well historically knights were used to take over empires and were soldiers like king Arthur. but bishop were just religious priests. nobody can remember any famous bishops.
As I belive knight is the most powerful.  knight can jump over the pieces. That's a great advantage. 
It depends on the player. Some people can play one far better than the other. Bishops are more powerful, but knights are better because of their abilities.
Aug 11, 2019
0
#5
In more positions, since more positions are somewhat open or will be eventually, a B is better, especially when combined with another B in an open position (one advantage here is that eventually, you may find an opportune time to trade one of them off advantageously). The N is better in closed positions, and the B can be "bad" if all the pawns are are on the same color of the B since the K+N will often be able to force the opposing side back, and eventually attack pawns.
One common idea, in the Slav for example, is after 1.d4 d5; 2.c4 c6, 3.Nf3 Nf6; 4;e3 eventually black will play Bg4 and trade for the Nf3. After that, to make up for the loss of light-square control, black will play e6. Most of black's pawns then are on light squares, controlling other light squares, and at the same time, they are on the opposite color of the Bf8, leaving the Bf8 very good. The danger in this plan is, again, that eventually the position might not stay closed, and white's B pair will come to life.
Generally, in open positions, or ones that can become open, you want the B. If the position is firmly locked, then the N may be preferable, especially if it has good outpost squares on the 5th or 6th rank that can make it hard for the opponent to maneuver.
Lastly, I cannot disagree more with IfPatriotGames. It does not depend on the player unless they are just too weak to know how to take advantage of one piece, or the other: It depends on the position, and good players learn to play with either piece based on the positions they are in.
PhishMaster wrote:
In more positions, since more positions are somewhat open or will be eventually, a B is better, especially when combined with another B in an open position (one advantage here is that eventually, you may find an opportune time to trade one of them off advantageously). The N is better in closed positions, and the B can be "bad" if all the pawns are are on the same color of the B since the K+N will often be able to force the opposing side back, and eventually attack pawns.
One common idea, in the Slav for example, is after 1.d4 d5; 2.c4 c6, 3.Nf3 Nf6; 4;e3 eventually black will play Bg4 and trade for the Nf3. After that, to make up for the loss of light-square control, black will play e6. Most of black's pawns then are on light squares, controlling other light squares, and at the same time, they are on the opposite color of the Bf8, leaving the Bf8 very good. The danger in this plan is, again, that eventually the position might not stay closed, and white's B pair will come to life.
Generally, in open positions, or ones that can become open, you want the B. If the position is firmly locked, then the N may be preferable, especially if it has good outpost squares on the 5th or 6th rank that can make it hard for the opponent to maneuver.
Lastly, I cannot disagree more with IfPatriotGames. It does not depend on the player unless they are just too weak to know how to take advantage of one piece, or the other: It depends on the position, and good players learn to play with either piece based on the positions they are in.
Most of what you said makes sense. Bishops can be better. And knights can be better too. It just depends on the player. The position makes no difference if the player doesnt know how to take advantage of it. Some people are just better with one over the other. It all comes down to ability. Look at it this way, which is better, a 2700 player with a knight, or a 700 player with a rook? It doesn't depend on the position, it depends on the player. Even two players of overall equal ability will have slight differences in how they play a bishop or knight, they are not truly equal. Some people are just more confident with one over the other, probably based on experience.
Grandmasters say the value of a knight is 3, and the value of a bishop is 3.25. Bishops are better in open positions, knights are better in closed positions. In endgames with 2 or more pawn islands, bishops are better. With one pawn island a knight is better. You can checkmate easily with 2 bishops, it's a theoretical draw if you have 2 knights. "In blitz, the knight is stronger than the bishop." Meaning knights are hard to play against in time scrambles. I personally prefer bishops, but it depends on the position.
Aug 11, 2019
0
#8
@lfPatriotGames It still does not come down to the player or ability. The question was "Who is the most powerful ??? Bishop or knight???". That is a chess question, and should be limited to the game, not adding in some random 700 player. Just because a 700 THINKS he handles a N better, that does not mean he does either.
It is what is on the board that always counts when evaluating a position, although you can take into account your opponent in certain instances like maybe one likes tactical melees or likes positional play, and aim for positions that he, or she, may not like. Even there, you still have to decide where to put pieces, and what to trade off to get to a position that fits what you keep on the board.
Bishops are better in open game and knights are better in closed game.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/which-are-better-for-the-endgame-knights-or-bishops
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/are-bishops-better-than-knights
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/knights-or-bishop-12
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-is-the-better-bishop-or-knight
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/q-a-for-beginners?page=46
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/do-you-prefer-knight-or-bishop?
For anyone below 1400 the knight is the most powerful piece. It can fork and that’s about all below 1400 games are about. (Saying this as a below 1400)
Aug 11, 2019
0
#12
@DaddyReza Thank you. I also want to commend part of Hypnoticdemon's comment:
"In endgames with 2 or more pawn islands, bishops are better. With one pawn island a knight is better. You can checkmate easily with 2 bishops, it's a theoretical draw if you have 2 knights."
I want to add a couple of things. In those endings with pawns in multiple islands, especially if the islands are far apart, the B can help hold back the opponent's distant islands from a far away, while also helping advance its own pawns. Also, I would add this about the two knights being a draw: That is true it is a draw as long as the opponent does not have a blockaded pawn far enough back still. If so, you can force the opposing king into a near-mate situation in the corner with your king and one N, while the other N blocks the p. Then right before stalemate, the second N, which is blocking the p can move, and the second N can come up fast and help administer the mate. Again, that is only against a p that has not moved too far up the board, or once the blockade is lifted, it can queen in time, and prevent the mate. It is only a sure draw when there are only the two Ns left. The endgame described above is very technical to win, and very rare, so I am only talking about the generalities of it as related to two Ns being a draw.
Thanks 
Imalittleaxleotto wrote:
I am not very good at chess, but I believe I have a somewhat accurate answer. Bishop's can cover more distance launching all the way across the board but only if the board is open with not a lot of interference, but it is also limited to only one color. The horses on the other hand, can be more advantageous in a closed board where pawns are locking up the board and it can be more advantageous to be able to switch colors and jump over pieces I hope that helped, probably not.
I believe they are essentially the same. However, depending on the specific game, the knight may be the more powerful piece or it could be the bishop, it really is dependant on each individual game as to which piece wields more power.
PhishMaster wrote:
@lfPatriotGames It still does not come down to the player or ability. The question was "Who is the most powerful ??? Bishop or knight???". That is a chess question, and should be limited to the game, not adding in some random 700 player. Just because a 700 THINKS he handles a N better, that does not mean he does either.
It is what is on the board that always counts when evaluating a position, although you can take into account your opponent in certain instances like maybe one likes tactical melees or likes positional play, and aim for positions that he, or she, may not like. Even there, you still have to decide where to put pieces, and what to trade off to get to a position that fits what you keep on the board.
It all comes down to the player, or ability. Why? Because it's chess. And two people playing chess is all about ability. Now if you are talking about two machines playing chess, I'll bet the bishop is better, depending on position. But I think the OP was talking about people. It's a chess question, and you have to factor in who is playing the chess. The same question could be asked about which is better, a knight and two pawns, or a rook? Most people I'm sure would rather have the knight and two pawns, but it all depends on what a person can do with them.
I have no doubt there are lots of examples where a bishop or knight is better, depending on position. But for every one of those examples, there are probably many thousands where it depends on the player instead. Not every human player is going to play any given position exactly the same way. We are human, we do really weird stuff.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
PhishMaster wrote:
@lfPatriotGames It still does not come down to the player or ability. The question was "Who is the most powerful ??? Bishop or knight???". That is a chess question, and should be limited to the game, not adding in some random 700 player. Just because a 700 THINKS he handles a N better, that does not mean he does either.
It is what is on the board that always counts when evaluating a position, although you can take into account your opponent in certain instances like maybe one likes tactical melees or likes positional play, and aim for positions that he, or she, may not like. Even there, you still have to decide where to put pieces, and what to trade off to get to a position that fits what you keep on the board.
It all comes down to the player, or ability. Why? Because it's chess. And two people playing chess is all about ability. Now if you are talking about two machines playing chess, I'll bet the bishop is better, depending on position. But I think the OP was talking about people. It's a chess question, and you have to factor in who is playing the chess. The same question could be asked about which is better, a knight and two pawns, or a rook? Most people I'm sure would rather have the knight and two pawns, but it all depends on what a person can do with them.
I have no doubt there are lots of examples where a bishop or knight is better, depending on position. But for every one of those examples, there are probably many thousands where it depends on the player instead. Not every human player is going to play any given position exactly the same way. We are human, we do really weird stuff.
Well, I'll shred your belief. The value of a knight compared to a bishop is what we're talking about, not how strong a player will use a minor piece or the comparison of the two minor pieces depending on one's ability to use it. Well, if you compare the capability of a club player to use minor pieces to the capability of the grandmaster, I'm sure grandmasters are better at handling pieces. But we're not talking with the capability/ability of a player compared to the other.
Actually, the power of a knight or a bishop depends on the position. Open positions are bishops' dreams, while closed positions are knights' dreams, but not always. For example, the knight is on a very strong outpost while the "good bishop" of the other player is just sitting on a useless square. If the position is open, the knight is still better. Another example would be the Stonewall c8-bishop. At first, you won't find use for it, but in actuality, the bishop on c8 is very useful. You can maneuver that bishop to h5, where it will be strong, or put it on b7 so that if the position opens, the bishop will find good prospects. Generally, the value of a knight compared to a bishop depends on which piece has more prospects, not if the position is closed or open.
Aug 12, 2019
0
#17
Thank you robertjames_perez. She is clearly adding her own aspect to the question, and thus, changing it.
The value of a piece is always, and only, dependent on the position, but there are general rules we have developed to guide us. I have seen plenty of composed problems where the composer shows how helpless an entire army is weaker that just a N, for example.
As everyone says, it depends on the POSITION. Generally, open games are bishops' dreams while closed games are knights' dreams like @robertjames_perez said, but there are always exceptions and it totallly depends on the POSITION. In ACTUAL PLAY, player types might be important, but we're talking about general positions instead of actual play.
Personally, I like bishops because there is something called advantage of 2 bishops and they can force checkmate against a lone king, but everyone has their opinions.
robertjames_perez wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
PhishMaster wrote:
@lfPatriotGames It still does not come down to the player or ability. The question was "Who is the most powerful ??? Bishop or knight???". That is a chess question, and should be limited to the game, not adding in some random 700 player. Just because a 700 THINKS he handles a N better, that does not mean he does either.
It is what is on the board that always counts when evaluating a position, although you can take into account your opponent in certain instances like maybe one likes tactical melees or likes positional play, and aim for positions that he, or she, may not like. Even there, you still have to decide where to put pieces, and what to trade off to get to a position that fits what you keep on the board.
It all comes down to the player, or ability. Why? Because it's chess. And two people playing chess is all about ability. Now if you are talking about two machines playing chess, I'll bet the bishop is better, depending on position. But I think the OP was talking about people. It's a chess question, and you have to factor in who is playing the chess. The same question could be asked about which is better, a knight and two pawns, or a rook? Most people I'm sure would rather have the knight and two pawns, but it all depends on what a person can do with them.
I have no doubt there are lots of examples where a bishop or knight is better, depending on position. But for every one of those examples, there are probably many thousands where it depends on the player instead. Not every human player is going to play any given position exactly the same way. We are human, we do really weird stuff.
Well, I'll shred your belief. The value of a knight compared to a bishop is what we're talking about, not how strong a player will use a minor piece or the comparison of the two minor pieces depending on one's ability to use it. Well, if you compare the capability of a club player to use minor pieces to the capability of the grandmaster, I'm sure grandmasters are better at handling pieces. But we're not talking with the capability/ability of a player compared to the other.
Actually, the power of a knight or a bishop depends on the position. Open positions are bishops' dreams, while closed positions are knights' dreams, but not always. For example, the knight is on a very strong outpost while the "good bishop" of the other player is just sitting on a useless square. If the position is open, the knight is still better. Another example would be the Stonewall c8-bishop. At first, you won't find use for it, but in actuality, the bishop on c8 is very useful. You can maneuver that bishop to h5, where it will be strong, or put it on b7 so that if the position opens, the bishop will find good prospects. Generally, the value of a knight compared to a bishop depends on which piece has more prospects, not if the position is closed or open.
I agree with most of what you said. The piece value is something like a knight at 3 and a bishop at 3.25. There is probably enough research to feel confident that's pretty close to accurate. The "power" of either a knight or bishop though depends entirely (100%) on the person using it. It's just a chess piece. It's "power" is zero until a person uses it in a chess game.
A great position, with the right piece, is completely useless if the person doesn't realize it or doesn't know how to play it. At that point the more powerful piece, depending on position, becomes a paperweight.
People have tendencies, they have preferences, they have biases and they make poor judgements. That's just human nature. Chess is a game of constant mistakes. So what one person finds to be an advantage, another person can find to be a disadvantage. It just depends how the person plays the pieces and positions.
As I belive knight is the most powerful.  knight can jump over the pieces. That's a great advantage.