>22 games with
@YGNR showing good use of knights, bishops, theory, tactics and resigning in won positions.
>Player artificially reduces his rating.
>"what is you mean fork"
"what do numbers 3 3.15 and 3.25 mean?"
"what is opening"
>People keep actually replying
...
The question bishop versus knight is genuine, is interesting for a broad audience, and this deserves discussion.
I see too many beginners play BxN without any compensation. They are taught doubled pawns are bad, so they unjustifiedly give up the bishop's pair just to double opponent's pawns.
@tprI have actually seen people refuse to recapture to avoid doubling their pawns. I'm not kidding.
Doubled pawns are horrible, at least to the engines. I'll give up a B for a N anytime if I can double pawns for the endgame.
Had a really good period in 1987 where I was using the Exchange Lopez because I was new to chess and needed to avoid the main lines. Didn't lose a single game with it (u1800 opponents).
Way back in the day the knight and bishop values changed as a game progressed.Opening and early middle game knights were valued @ 3.5 for their extra mobility on a crowded board,and bishops were @ 3. As the board opened up these values reversed due to the extra power of bishops over longer distances .
Does this still apply ?
No, no and no. Chess is concrete. Nothing is always better and nothing is always worse. Golden rule: there is no golden rule.
In the exchange Ruy Lopez 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 white has compensation for the lost bishop's pair, not only in the doubled c-pawns, but also in the lost tempo 3...a6. Practice shows the position is balanced, white's chances to get any advantage are minimal. Most grandmasters prefer to save the bishop's pair with 4 Ba4. The modern trend is to avoid the loss of tempo with 3...a6 and to play the Berlin Defence 3...Nf6. Modern is hilarious, as 3...Nf6 and 3...a6 4 Bxc6 were played by Lasker.
Relevant to the topic. Lasker had an impressive record in the R+B vs. R+N endgames with pawns present. When he had the bishop, he demonstrated its superiority over the knight. When he had the knight, he showed the tactical chances it offers.
Aside from what has already been said:
I prefer knights in fast games, vs lower rated opponents and in desperate positions. I don't know how many times I've turned a loss into a win because my opponent couldn't calculate knight moves. Knights also have some unique drawing resources.
On the other hand, the 2 bishops is really strong and usually better than a rook and pawn. Bishops can force draws down a pawn or even two in some cases (esp opp color).
A lot of it depends on the situation and the opponent. I play an aggressive style so I naturally prefer bishops because of their strength in open games but because of my style the bishops often get traded or sacrificed leaving me with knights in the endgame. That's fine in fast games so I guess it works for me but I would like to improve in slow games. My slow rep includes a lot of Bxn exchanges so honestly I don't know lol
I'm a far cry from the top, but I'd like to believe I'm fairly good for where I am; so I'll offer my two cents. The way I see it, a bishop can only ever hope to reach half of the squares on the board ever; however in exchange can practically zip right to any one of those squares in a heartbeat. On the other hand, a knight can potentially reach any square on the board; however in exchange it can take a while to maneuver to a particular square. Bishops are easier to visualize though harder to fully account for when you can visualize them, while knights are harder to visualize though easier to fully account for once you can. Beyond that; here's me regurgitating that knights work better in crowded positions where their ability to jump over pieces lets them be effectively faster than the bishops that are hindered by the crowd, until the crowd starts to clear out letting the bishops start to show off their real speed.
One thing I haven't seen mention of is the bishop anti-pair; this would only show up as a result of an under-promotion which should only be used to prevent delivering stalemate when the promotion of the pawn really is called for right that instant, but an anti-pair is easily worse than a knight pair because the second bishop of the same color improves overall board coverage by close to albeit not quite nothing. Even in the aforementioned situation, you would usually under-promote to a rook for better coverage or to a knight if it would deliver a promotion-check(mate) instead of stalemate that way; again showing that a bishop anti-pair is plain undesirable. I'd love to see someone post a position where under-promoting to an anti-pair is the best move, if just to show how niche and weird such a position would have to be.
My own 2 minor piece team ranking from best to worst would be as follows:
- bishop pair (working together they deliver swift and sure coverage for the entire board),
- bishop+knight (the knight can at least do its best to fill the shoes of the missing bishop),
- knight pair (the two knights can get up to a little bit of tricky business working together),
- anti-pair (utility of guarding each other in a single tempo almost no matter the position).
