chess videos

Chess Videos

Tag and you will gain!
Strange name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
ares 4 ( +1 | -1 )
Which is better, Bishop or knight?? Which is better, Bishop or knight??
invincible1 7 ( +1 | -1 )
ares usually bishop. but knights can be more powerful in closed positions.
gatsby 7 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, this young lad who questions the greater power of pieces is handing me quite the thrashing.
invincible1 6 ( +1 | -1 )
gastby Yes, thats true..lol!
He has an excellent record of 15 wins and no losses!
hamlet 13 ( +1 | -1 )
i was playing zoob and he told me that bishops are normally better for attack, while knights are usually better at defense
invincible1 13 ( +1 | -1 )
hamlet Maybe true. I personally prefer bishops as they travel faster! But knights can be very good at attacking as well!
More: Chess
ares 25 ( +1 | -1 )
I feel the knight has greater power as he may travel over other pieces and has an attack that is not as easily noticed. however whoever invented chess thought they were equal thus they have equal points
invincible1 28 ( +1 | -1 )
ares well, the person who invented chess did not invent any point system. The rough points for pieces have developed over years. Bishops are certainly stronger in most endgames but then a bishop can cover only half the squares. So, it all depends upon the position.
hamlet 19 ( +1 | -1 )
i personally loath bishops. they get in the way and I never could see the diagonal assault. That's how I lost most of my original games...so I almost always will sacrafice a horse for a bishop
chesshog 35 ( +1 | -1 )
Which is better, Bishop or knight?? In the beginning and into the middle of the game I believe the knight has more value because there are more pieces and the knight can jump those in the way and attack somewhat covertly. In the end game, the knight provides very little supprise and slow to get to the spot you need it. But it really depends on the situation at the time in any game as to which is more important.
ares 12 ( +1 | -1 )
Which would you rather start with both of? both knight and one bishop or both bishops and one knight?
drcorbett 67 ( +1 | -1 )
Hmmm, I'd, honestly, have both bishops. Together, they are an attack force of amazing and unstoppable magnitude. (Except when running into rooks ;-) However, Knights are amazing king-attackers in the middle game -- you can attack with them, and you cannot interpose a piece. You have to _run_ like the dickens or kill the guy, and if you're moving a knight into a killed situation without a good reason...

Well, my biggest gripe with the two bishops is that they can never cover eachother. Although one bishop tucked away in the corner and guarded by pawns makes a great "artillery piece," I really can't say. They are all dependant on the situation.
komei 14 ( +1 | -1 )
Depends on the position... An active knight is far more useful than a blocked bishop or even a rook if that rook is still stuck in it's corner!
clemens 59 ( +1 | -1 )
I think.... that Knights and Bishops start out equal, it's the game situation that makes one of them more valuable than the other.
It's a well-known fact that bishops are generally stronger in open positions while knights prefer closed positions. Also, knights thrive in advanced posts; a knight safely installed on the sixth rank can easily be worth a rook! (Kasparov about the first game of the Kasparov-Deep Junior match: "All my life I believed that a knight on the sixth was worth a rook, and this game proved it!" :))
komei 38 ( +1 | -1 )
If you can still see it... ...check out board #621402" target="_blank">gameknot.com/chess.pl?board #621402 for a game in which I effectively allowed a double rook sacrifice for the sake of a knight and queen achieving checkmate :-)
ares 7 ( +1 | -1 )
Man, I wish i could swear cuz u slaughtered that guy, nice sacrifice
bartlebie 9 ( +1 | -1 )
Knights are clearly stronger. Knights are the only chessmen with ears, so they can hear the enemy coming!
superblunder 3 ( +1 | -1 )
very funny! you got me laughing out loud, bartlebie!
atrifix 70 ( +1 | -1 )
In general (very general), bishops are better than knights. However, they're of roughly equal material value since there are any number of situations where knights are better than bishops, etc.


hamlet, your classification strikes me as odd--usually it's accepted that knights are better for attacking, while bishops are usually better for defense (e.g. in bughouse, the attacker will usually place lots of knights and heavy pieces while the defender generally places bishops and pawns). All of this, however, is extremely general and each piece can have its own strengths and weaknesses in any given position.
icefox69 16 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm not one for chess books but... I read something which said at the start bishops are worth 2 points and knights 3 points. And the opposite in the end game. My (limited) experience bears that out.
atrifix 29 ( +1 | -1 )
In general bishops are usually better than knights in all pases of the game. However, this sometimes stands out most in the endgame since the large majority of endgames are open, while middlegames are often closed. Bishops simply function better in open positions (usually).
jstack 6 ( +1 | -1 )
Bishop versus Knight the verdict There is a book by this title. Has anybody read it?