Which chess piece is better? A bishop or a knight? Although they both are worth 3 points...
It clearly depends on the position you are playing.
If it's a closed center and closed position, I would trade both of my bishops and keep my knights, if the position will probably open sooner or later, then I prefer to keep my bishops because they will have more scope. But in general, I think that bishops are better, even if the knight can be a dangerous octopus with forks, sniper bishops are usually more dangerous for the opponent
If it's a closed center and closed position, I would trade both of my bishops and keep my knights, if the position will probably open sooner or later, then I prefer to keep my bishops because they will have more scope. But in general, I think that bishops are better, even if the knight can be a dangerous octopus with forks, sniper bishops are usually more dangerous for the opponent
There are about fifty pages on knights and bishops in The Amateur's Mind by Jeremy Silman.
"... The Amateur’s Mind ... is one of the best instructive books in print. ..."
web.archive.org/web/20140708094419/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/ammind.pdf
"... The Amateur's Mind ... (for players 1000 to 1600) ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2010)
www.silmanjamespress.com/shop/chess/amateurs-mind-the-2nd-edition/
"... The Amateur’s Mind ... is one of the best instructive books in print. ..."
web.archive.org/web/20140708094419/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/ammind.pdf
"... The Amateur's Mind ... (for players 1000 to 1600) ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2010)
www.silmanjamespress.com/shop/chess/amateurs-mind-the-2nd-edition/
Sometimes a Pawn is stronger than a Queen . You @MIHIR_KATTI need to play over many complete games to get an idea of what is possible & what must be refuted , In General The Bishops have an edge in Open positions
@ThunderClap said in #4:
> Sometimes a Pawn is stronger than a Queen . You @MIHIR_KATTI need to play over many complete games to get an idea of what is possible & what must be refuted , In General The Bishops have an edge in Open positions
So it's all position wise?
> Sometimes a Pawn is stronger than a Queen . You @MIHIR_KATTI need to play over many complete games to get an idea of what is possible & what must be refuted , In General The Bishops have an edge in Open positions
So it's all position wise?
@MIHIR_KATTI said in #1:
> Which chess piece is better? A bishop or a knight? Although they both are worth 3 points...
Are they really? Lasker said a bishop should be 3.5 points while Fischer said it should be 3.25...
Nowadays, engines start with 3 points as the baseline for a minor piece but they then evaluate features of the specific position and adjust the value. Humans should do the same!
> Which chess piece is better? A bishop or a knight? Although they both are worth 3 points...
Are they really? Lasker said a bishop should be 3.5 points while Fischer said it should be 3.25...
Nowadays, engines start with 3 points as the baseline for a minor piece but they then evaluate features of the specific position and adjust the value. Humans should do the same!
> Which chess piece is better? A bishop or a knight? Although they both are worth 3 points...
Like some people say:
Open position = bishops are better
Closed position = knights are better
Like some people say:
Open position = bishops are better
Closed position = knights are better
@CheesLord25 said in #7:
> Like some people say:
> Open position = bishops are better
> Closed position = knights are better
True, coz knights are more active in a closed position, but sometimes they can also be active in an open one. What say?
> Like some people say:
> Open position = bishops are better
> Closed position = knights are better
True, coz knights are more active in a closed position, but sometimes they can also be active in an open one. What say?
Bi shop
@MIHIR_KATTI said in #1:
> Which chess piece is better? A bishop or a knight? Although they both are worth 3 points...
Pieces arent worth anything and they are all worth a lot. They all control squares, it doesnt matter which one you use to control the most important squares of the game, as long as you do control them, you are winning, regardless of material.
The pieces are assigned "values" due to their mobility. Bishops are more valuable than knights generally because they have, well, greater mobility.
The exception to the rule is when the game is closed and there are very few squares to move, thats when the knight gets a bit stronger, they not only can jump over pieces, they also have a property that bishops dont have, they can land in squares of either color. So given enough tempos, they can control a square a bishop simply cant.
So, generally speaking, the knight value, according to Kasparov is around 3.15, the bishop value is around 3.25, but it all depends on the position.
The main point is that value of the pieces is not fixed, its dynamic and it changes every single move, the assigned values taught when learning are just a generalization. A pawn in the 7th rank that is keeping a rook tied up is not worth 1 point, a knight at the edge of the board is not worth 3 nor 3.15, its worth less. A knight threatening a royal fork and a mate its worth way more than 3 points. An uncontested bishop on a diagonal that control various vital squares for 3 or so moves is not worth 3 points. Its worth more.
Tempos, position, initiative, they also have value, and its also dynamic, so if you have to waste 3 tempos to try and remove control of a vital square of a bishop, you give the other player 3 tempos to do something else on the board. That is worth A LOT. Chess is very complex, dont reduce it to a point counting contest, that is not what the game is about.
Once you learn how to trade material for tempos/initiative, or position/activity, you will understand this, and your game will improve greatly. If you get fixated by this stupid idea that pieces have fixed values, you will be stuck at your level until you realize it is what it is, a stupid idea.
> Which chess piece is better? A bishop or a knight? Although they both are worth 3 points...
Pieces arent worth anything and they are all worth a lot. They all control squares, it doesnt matter which one you use to control the most important squares of the game, as long as you do control them, you are winning, regardless of material.
The pieces are assigned "values" due to their mobility. Bishops are more valuable than knights generally because they have, well, greater mobility.
The exception to the rule is when the game is closed and there are very few squares to move, thats when the knight gets a bit stronger, they not only can jump over pieces, they also have a property that bishops dont have, they can land in squares of either color. So given enough tempos, they can control a square a bishop simply cant.
So, generally speaking, the knight value, according to Kasparov is around 3.15, the bishop value is around 3.25, but it all depends on the position.
The main point is that value of the pieces is not fixed, its dynamic and it changes every single move, the assigned values taught when learning are just a generalization. A pawn in the 7th rank that is keeping a rook tied up is not worth 1 point, a knight at the edge of the board is not worth 3 nor 3.15, its worth less. A knight threatening a royal fork and a mate its worth way more than 3 points. An uncontested bishop on a diagonal that control various vital squares for 3 or so moves is not worth 3 points. Its worth more.
Tempos, position, initiative, they also have value, and its also dynamic, so if you have to waste 3 tempos to try and remove control of a vital square of a bishop, you give the other player 3 tempos to do something else on the board. That is worth A LOT. Chess is very complex, dont reduce it to a point counting contest, that is not what the game is about.
Once you learn how to trade material for tempos/initiative, or position/activity, you will understand this, and your game will improve greatly. If you get fixated by this stupid idea that pieces have fixed values, you will be stuck at your level until you realize it is what it is, a stupid idea.