Let's start with the age-old question of bishop vs. knight. The conclusions are clear and consistent: although the average value of a bishop is noticeably higher than the average value value of a knight, this difference is entirely due to the large value of the bishop pair. In other words, an unpaired bishop and knight are of equal value (within 1/50 of a pawn, statistically meaningless), so positional considerations (such as open or closed position, good or bad bishop, etc.) will decide which piece is better.
This applies regardless of whether there are few or many pieces on the board. This is really quite a coincidence; in Chinese chess one knight is worth more than two bishops, while in Japanese chess one bishop is worth more than two knights! Although single bishop and knight are equal against each other, my research confirms Capablanca's claim that the bishop is a bit better than the knight when fighting against a rook or (in the endgame) against multiple pawns.
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
one must also note that when one exchanges a bishop for a knight, the result will be universally felt, in that , the bishop is no longer able to protect the squares of its colour, and therefore we may be subject to an attack on a particular colour complex, however, after the knight is exchanged, our opponent will suffer a weakening on the opposite colour squares on which the knight was standing, which may lead to an advantage on that complex for us. No one was more adept at exchanging bishops for knight and knights for bishops to advantage than Fischer.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell you don't usually "attack" a whole color complex, you attack a square BUT a good attack is flexible and can be changed to another square in a blink which is controlling squares of a certain color to maneuver to different axis points.
one must also note that when one exchanges a bishop for a knight, the result will be universally felt, in that , the bishop is no longer able to protect the squares of its colour, and therefore we may be subject to an attack on a particular colour complex, however, after the knight is exchanged, our opponent will suffer a weakening on the opposite co ...[text shortened]... s more adept at exchanging bishops for knight and knights for bishops to advantage than Fischer.
Usually in an attack there are at least 2 main squares; the square you are attacking and a square that is used to bring your other pieces to bear on the attack point or to prevent your opponent from bringing pieces to the defense. (these main squares are the main part of the color complex or the ones you are giving the most attention. You don't attack all the squares in the complex, only one, and the others should already be controlled before you initiate your attack.)
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornis it just me or have we had this discussion a million times?
>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.
One of those times you posted this exact same reply am I correct?
I know you have because I remembered it from last time, I like it
Originally posted by orion25I agree. And a good player knows how to play the advantage, and seize it when available. The pieces are a means to an end.
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