Originally posted by erikidoThe position dictates which one your prefer in general? Or do you mean the position dictates which one is better?
depends on the position.
@ellu I prefer the knights because against lower rated players they are an enigma that they don't quite understand which allows me to use the knights in ways that will surprise them.
Against equal or better opponents I try to create a complicated semi open position that isn't necessarily better for knights or bishops and then try to make my knights strong. I don't fight for completely closed positions (which are almost always better for knights) because those are too slow.
Very generally speaking, bishops are better in open positions and knights in closed ones. This means that if the minor pieces are asymmetrical then you should try to steer the position into one which favours the minor pieces you have.
It is also undoubtedly true that most players are better at playing with knights than bishops until they are a pretty good standard (perhaps 1800-2000 on this site). It is quite common for a weaker player to trap a bishop behind his own pawns so that it is next to useless. It's much easier to untangle a badly placed knight. It's great to see a game where a strong player has used his bishops effectively, sometimes spotting where they need to be many moves before his opponent realises what is going on. Knights are easy to understand. We all know what an outpost is and can work out how to get a knight there.
There is a big difference between knights and bishops in the endgame. Because bishops can cover the whole board in one move, they tend to be stronger in endgames where there are pawns on both sides of the board. Knights take ages to get from one side to the other and so prefer it if all the pawns are on the same side (or all in the middle, which is quite unusual in an endgame).
I think too much is made of the supposed advantage of the "bishop pair". Often my opponents will swap off a good knight of theirs for a bad bishop of mine because they think that the fact that they have two bishops against a bishop and knight will give them a decisive advantage.
it depends on what you do with them... an active knight is better than a passive bishop, its up to you to make your pieces strong, whatever they are. I personally have no preference, I don't decide wheather I want a bishop or a knight, I play for what gives me the best advantage in the position. If I have the opportunity to trade a bad piece for a good one I do it. Its not the pieces that are better or worse, its the player that is good or bad
>I'm involved in teaching chess to young kids, and it becomes interesting to see them develop a passion for the game. One day at our chess club, a group of them were debating which piece they liked better, knights or bishops. I listened for a while and then one of them turned to me to ask, "What is your favourite chess piece?"
>I responded, "I like the king best, and I'll do anything within the rules to protect him." Then of course I gave them all the standard responses as to when knights and or bishops are superior to one another, but I just wanted to drive home to them the whole point of the game and not lose sight of it.
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornha, nice!
>I'm involved in teaching chess to young kids, and it becomes interesting to see them develop a passion for the game. One day at our chess club, a group of them were debating which piece they liked better, knights or bishops. I listened for a while and then one of them turned to me to ask, "What is your favourite chess piece?"
>I responded, "I like th ...[text shortened]... I just wanted to drive home to them the whole point of the game and not lose sight of it.
Originally posted by Fat LadyAs correct as this is, I must edify.
Very generally speaking, bishops are better in open positions and knights in closed ones. This means that if the minor pieces are asymmetrical then you should try to steer the position into one which favours the minor pieces you have.
It is also undoubtedly true that most players are better at playing with knights than bishops until they are a pretty goo that they have two bishops against a bishop and knight will give them a decisive advantage.
The strength of the bishops is in relation to the ground it stands upon.
The position most certainly dictates the worth of each piece, however
a good player dictates the position, in order to create the advantage
of his pieces. A Knight can be worth more than a bishop, and a bishop
worth more than a Knight. This is simple and true. However, control
of the factors which dictate their worth, is priceless.
The bishop pair is a strength not to be overlooked. However, neither
is the strength of a pair of Knights. The relationships of all pieces can
be symbiotic, it is the conductors responsibility to initiate this
relationship. The existence of any relationship is not enough to make
it advantagous. It may become a courtesy, and not a weapon. The
relationship of the pieces is the well of its worth. Therefore A
players energy between pieces, is greater than the mere saviorry of
each piece.
Originally posted by tmstwrt88I love it every time I can use a tactic using a Knight either sacrificing my Knight or sacrificing another piece followed by a Knight fork. Either way I love tactics involving Knights. I just love the way they move around the board catching the unwary by surprise.
really?
During the play of a game you may want to note if your oppenent has a Knight or Bishop that may become or is becoming a problem. When your oppenent has a troublesome Knight or Bishop you need to capture it before it give him winning chances even if you have to do a exchange sacrifice with a Rook.
Generally speaking, I prefer knights. This is because I don't come up with many tactical shots; instead I try to build up a good strategic position and come away up a single piece. Then I start trading down and trust to my skill to push a pawn through to the other side - which knights are often better at doing in the sorts of situation I get into - when space is not so much the issue as breaking up bulwarks.