Whats a more valuable piece in chess, a knight or bishop ?

Question

i think youre right, it depends primarily on the pawn structure

Answer 1

Usually the Bishop is a little stronger because it has more range.  In some situations the Knight is better, mostly because the pawn structure restricts the opposing bishop to squares of one color while the knight can attact or defend either color squares.

Really, you need to look at the specific position; generalizations are pretty weak.  But most of the time the bishop is better.

Answer 2

In the the game of chest the bishop is the more valuable piece between knight and bishop. Because with the bishop you can set up traps on your opponent.

Answer 3

I'd have to go with the knight over the bishop. If you are left with a king and a knight at the end of the game you can still win, but if you have a bishop and a king i don't think you can.

Answer 4

Ok, so this is the third time at least this question came up here. I Guess it shows what a huge community this must be. Anyway this is what I said the first 2 times and people thought it was a good answer. I'll show it again here. You don't have to give me any extra points or anything, it has a recycled feel about it. :)

There's really no way to know that without looking at the position. Still, an old Russian teaching is: Trade a knight for a bishop whenever you can.

A bishop is stronger in almost every endgame. Even if a bishop is very bad at first, it will come to life later. (The fewer pawns, the more room.) The strenght of the bishop really depends on the position of the pawns.

A bishop doesn't like blocked pawns, especially pawns of the same colour. If 2 of your own centre pawns were on the same colour of your bishop this is especially bad. If there were 4 or more blocking pawns, the knight is probably stronger.

If the bishop cannot get outside its own pawn chain, (very bad bishop) the knight is better.

If there are only pawns left on one wing, and the long range of the bishop is not a factor, the knight may be stronger because it can attack squares of both colours.

If a knight is firmly placed on the sixth row (defended by a pawn) and can never be driven away/exchanged, it may be as strong as a rook.

On the other hand:

If there are pawns on both wings, preferably not fixed, the bishop is good.

If there are passed pawns in the game, the bishop is better. A knight is horrible at stopping passed pawns, especially rook pawns.

If the bishop is on an open long diagonal, attacking the wing with the king, this can be devastating, especially with queens on the board.

If you have the bishops pair, this is usually an extra advantage. If you only have two pieces left the combination of 1 knight and 1 bishop is usually worst, because these pieces don't cooperate very well. This seems weird, but statistics show you're better off with either 2 bishops or 2 knights, even though you couldn't mate with 2 knights. You should consider that the fact that you have two knights will usually not mean you will end up with 2 extra knights...usually you will win a pawn. It doesn't matter if you sacrifice a knight or two, as long as you get your new queen.

I hope this helps...anyway you must look at the structure of the pawns before you can judge.

Answer 5

the bishop cuz it looks cooler

Answer 6

Having two bishops are better than having two knights.

One knight is better than one bishop.

Answer 7

the Queen is the most important piece but if I had to choose between the two it would be knight because it is the only piece that can jump other pieces.

Answer 8

As far as "point" value goes the bishop and the knight have had different values throughout history but USUALLY they are equal.  Here is a Wiki link on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece...

The value of bishops and knights (in my opinion) varies based upon board position and personal playing style.

Answer 9

bishop

Answer 10

Many people underestimate the knight.  That's my number one reason for preferring it!

In a single move, the knight doesn't have the "potential" range the bishop has.  Unfortunately for the bishop, those long diagonals are a possibility that is limited throughout the game by pawns.  Pawns limit the development and effectiveness of bishops at every stage of the game.

On the other hand, the knight can be developed quickly.

Throughout the game it's somewhat "quirky" movement often leads to a more unpredictable development that can jump past pawns and attack the rear, usually "forking" opponents pieces and forcing them to retreat along the way!

I prefer the knight over the bishop for the following reasons;

1)  It can be developed quickly to deter bishops and queens!

2)  A knight is not limited to one color like a bishop is!

3)  No other piece can attack a queen without putting itself under attack by that queen!

4)  The way my knight can "fork" two pieces at once seems to be overlooked by my opponents more often than a threat from the more predictable bishop.  I've won countless queens and rooks with my knight by forking them and calling check!

5)  Breaking up my opponents pawn structure in an end game is easier done with a knight than a bishop.

Answer 11

In a typical position a bishop has an edge over a knight.  That's because it has greater mobility and and can influence the play on both sides of the board without laboriously moving back and forth from one side to the other.

There are numerous exceptions to this general rule, which is one of the reasons chess requires great insight to play well.  The most common reason a knight might be better than a bishop is if the bishop's mobility is limited by being hemmed in by its own pawns - the so-called "bad bishop".