In chess, what piece has more value, the Bishop or the Knight?

If you’re very good at chess andcan be very shady about plans, the knights and rooks are the best. It’s always a good idea to use your knights often. But if you are just good playing the game in your own special way that emphasizes use of the bishop, then go ahead and use it. Still the knight is much more valuable.

It’s all about the castles.

You mean rooks.

Same thing, I prefer castles.

Well, calling rooks castles makes you look like a chess noob.

Seriously, rooks.

And actually, you kind of look like a nerd, @Fred931.

While I agree that knight forks and so on can be very effective, I seem to recall that the traditional Chess scoring system I saw had bishops rated half a point higher than knights. Not that that means anything really. They’re different.

To compare one piece to another, place one on an empty board and count the squares it can move to.

From a central square, bishops hit 13 squares while knights hit 8. But the knight makes up some value by being able to move to both colors, while the bishop is locked on the same color.

The relative power of knights and bishops changes greatly depending on the friendly pawns on the board. Bishops much decrease in value when friendly pawns are on the same color square as the bishop because that limits the bishop’s mobility.

The more open the board, the more of an advantage the bishop has over the knight. In a blocked position, the knight might take the lead. So that aids in one’s planning. When you have bishops, open lines for them. When you have knights, keep the position closed.

In general, a bishop is worth a bit more than a knight. If a player can get a bishop in exchange for a knight, and other positional factors stay equal, s/he has done well.

A knight I would argue is more useful and valuable than a bishop. Knights can be used to jump over other pieces to make strategic advantages, where as a Bishop is limited to only line of sight.

In most rating systems the bishop and knight are equal. wikipedia has a good article discussing the value of chess pieces. In practice the value will also depend on your style of play. Some masters prefer knights and some bishops. You need to be able to use either or both in combination in order to be a good player.

On another note I used the iPhone copy/paste for the first time to get that link. It was awesome.

They have equal ranking in all the rating systems I have seen, but I’ve also read that the bishop is worth a little more. In game play, the bishop pins, while the knight attacks. I haven’t played in a long time, but when I did, I don’t recall ever making the choice of exchanging a knight for a bishop or the other way around. Maybe it’s because I wasn’t that good of a player.

They made bishops 3.25 & knights 3 for a reason ya know ;)

walshy

Bishops are technicaly worth more but I’m going to let you in on a little secrete… The knights are worth way more considering there the only peaces that can jump over other peaces and when you move your knights to the center of the board they defend alot of spaces

Also useful about knights is that they move unlike any other piece, so they can attack and defend without being in direct conflict with other pieces. Also for pre-expert players, it’s not so obvious where they can be in 2–5 moves, and since a threat can force an opponent to take a move to react, you can sometimes hop in and take the initiative and a few pieces with a knight that the opponent won’t have considered.

@frdelrosario hit the nail on the head in his answer. The only thing I would add is that knights are frequently superior in endgames w/ pawns on one side of the board; conversely, bishops usually prevail in endgames w/ pawns on both sides of the board.

When someone asks “which piece has more value: the bishop or the knight?”, will the subtle abstraction “knights are often better in endings with pawns on one side of the board” be helpful to the person asking the question? Or would that information be more useful for someone who’s played a few thousand games? @marauder76 is correct, in any case.

@frdelrosario: As you surely know, the answer to the original question is simply “it depends.” Your answer did a nice job of shedding light on some of the positional elements upon which the answer depends. I took it a step further.

But I would argue that my input is hardly a “subtle abstraction.” To the contrary, it’s a straightforward concept that could aid any player who is ready to think about relative values of the minor pieces. I’m glad I learned it well before reaching the “few thousand game” mark.

Cheers!