bishop or knight? • page 1/2 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

Although the bishop is more often than not worth slightly more than the knight. I would like to know Which One You Have Had More Succsess With

increment0

#2

I don’t know... I like both especially bishop

NM MrPushwood

#3

If only you were asking this about medieval history (then it might be a new topic).

Clearchesser

#4

Ironically in my case it's the Knight. It is generally developed before Bishops and in my case developed first. I also like to favor them in the endgame if I can since they don't draw if you're a pawn up. When I first started Chess I only had a draw with wrong color Bishop and Rook pawn ending.

Koo8384

#5

Depends on the position

obladie

#6

Pointless thread.Pls report me for saying it.Draw attention to it.

MohammadAayanKhan

#7

Knight in ultra or hyper bullet ( because it frustrates the opponent)

obladie

#8

Why did #6 get a down-vote? If you wish to discuss chess stuff,go to the forums designated for that.

C4to

#9

In my experience, they happen to be different pieces of similar value, and if your question is in regards to which one is better, then I would say in the majority of cases they are very much equal.

There are three exceptions in my mind right now in regards to which is better:
In some sicilians, White sometimes has the chance to trade down all the minor pieces except for his Knight, and Black's Dark square Bishop, and when the Knight is on d5, the dark square Bishop can never attack it, and it is an extremely pleasant position to play.
Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsqhaNHqvY0&ab_channel=SaintLouisChessClub (go to 17:20)

https://lichess.org/oIl4w1ADoN40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8WTClPrue0

When one side has BOTH Bishops on long diagonals, like in the Danish Gambit
Example: rn3r1k/ppqP1pnp/2p2Np1/8/1b6/6P1/PB2BP1P/R2Q1RK1 w - - 1 19
This FEN shows a winning position for White.

In an endgame, Bishops are easier to work with than Knights.

In the middle game, I would say they are honestly very equal, maybe the Knight is a bit better between moves 8-14.

But the thing to remember is, it all depends on the position and the tactics in the position. As you play more chess, you gain more anectodal knowledge and instinct. There is no simple rule to tell you what you should exchange in any position, if there was Chess would be "too easy". It really is just learning new patterns all the time, and letting that knowledge sink in.

My evaluation is from the games I've played, and I rarely get into endgames, so perhaps the bishop's value is lost to me.

Don't listen to others who tell you that a Bishop is worth more than a Knight, because although they may play well with a Bishop, if you don't understand how to play with a Bishop, you shouldn't even follow that guideline at all.

And even the two greatest players of all time, Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer, had differing opinions on the value of the Bishop vs. Knight.

Bobby Fischer played aggressive, complicated, but sound chess, and rated the Bishop as being worth 3.25 pawns, where as Kasparov, who played aggressive, very complicated, but arguably unsound chess (As in not computer recommended, but complications are part of the game) rated Bishop's worth as 3.15 pawns, and I would argue that it makes sense that Garry Kasparov, being a godly tactician, would prefer a piece that is harder to keep track and in essence very chaotic.

TL:DR the difference is negligible for the vast majority of people.

In my experience, they happen to be different pieces of similar value, and if your question is in regards to which one is better, then I would say in the majority of cases they are very much equal. There are three exceptions in my mind right now in regards to which is better: In some sicilians, White sometimes has the chance to trade down all the minor pieces except for his Knight, and Black's Dark square Bishop, and when the Knight is on d5, the dark square Bishop can never attack it, and it is an extremely pleasant position to play. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsqhaNHqvY0&ab_channel=SaintLouisChessClub (go to 17:20) https://lichess.org/oIl4w1ADoN40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8WTClPrue0 When one side has BOTH Bishops on long diagonals, like in the Danish Gambit Example: rn3r1k/ppqP1pnp/2p2Np1/8/1b6/6P1/PB2BP1P/R2Q1RK1 w - - 1 19 This FEN shows a winning position for White. In an endgame, Bishops are easier to work with than Knights. In the middle game, I would say they are honestly very equal, maybe the Knight is a bit better between moves 8-14. But the thing to remember is, it all depends on the position and the tactics in the position. As you play more chess, you gain more anectodal knowledge and instinct. There is no simple rule to tell you what you should exchange in any position, if there was Chess would be "too easy". It really is just learning new patterns all the time, and letting that knowledge sink in. My evaluation is from the games I've played, and I rarely get into endgames, so perhaps the bishop's value is lost to me. Don't listen to others who tell you that a Bishop is worth more than a Knight, because although they may play well with a Bishop, if you don't understand how to play with a Bishop, you shouldn't even follow that guideline at all. And even the two greatest players of all time, Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer, had differing opinions on the value of the Bishop vs. Knight. Bobby Fischer played aggressive, complicated, but sound chess, and rated the Bishop as being worth 3.25 pawns, where as Kasparov, who played aggressive, very complicated, but arguably unsound chess (As in not computer recommended, but complications are part of the game) rated Bishop's worth as 3.15 pawns, and I would argue that it makes sense that Garry Kasparov, being a godly tactician, would prefer a piece that is harder to keep track and in essence very chaotic. TL:DR the difference is negligible for the vast majority of people.

LittleJennyWren

#10

Horsey