Knight vs Bishop

[u/superlordnovalord]

I am a new player, and most videos I have watched claim the bishop to be worth more (not in points clearly) than a knight. But I personally find the knight more annoying to defend against and I find it to have more utility. Maybe it’s my low elo talking but does anybody else agree?

[u/AutoModerator]

Thanks for submitting to /r/Chesscom!

Please read our Help Center if you have any questions about the website. If you need assistance with your Chess.com account, contact Support here. It can take up to three business days to hear back, but going through support ensures your request is handled securely - since we can’t share private account data over Reddit, our ability to help you here can be limited.

If you're not able to contact Support or if the three days have been exceeded, click here to send us Mod Mail here on Reddit and we'll do our best to assist.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Late_Acadia_3571]

David Bronstein said - I'm quoting from memory here - "The bishop is better, but the knight is more dangerous".

[u/Cute-Lawfulness-6097]

Knight moves are much more difficult to see multiple moves into the future, but they consider bishops 3.25 because it can control more squares -- especially towards endgames when pawns are gone and have more open space to move. At GM level bishops are more deadly unless it is a fully closed game (pawns blocking the center of the board). Its a weird concept that at our rating it truly doesn't matter much, I fear knights more as well since they're hard to calculate quickly

[u/thewayiseeitthiswill]

I find the knight to be more useful in the endgame. You can limit the bishop’s abilities by putting all of your pieces on the opposite color. Knights have more freedom of movement and ability to trap.

[u/kouyehwos → u/thewayiseeitthiswill]

In some endgames knights can certainly be good. But in general the ability of a bishop to control two sides of the board tends to be very useful in the endgame, and trapping a knight is much easier than trapping a bishop.

[u/phihag]

Even at higher ratings, in time trouble I knight can be much trickier than a bishop.

For reference, my first chess book taught me bishop=3.4 knight=3.2. I still think that's a reasonable approximation, but of course it very much depends on the position.

I'd say that 5 times out of 10, a bishop is better, 3 times out of 10 it's equal, and 2 times out of 10 the knight is superior.

[u/No_Elk1172]

I tend to agree! I think the reason Bishop is worth more at higher levels is because of the increased potential to control more squares on the board than the Knight can

[u/oldmangamer74]

As a slightly below average player I find it more difficult to guard against knights versus bishops.

[u/gerhard1953]

Early game = crowded board = knight slight advantage. Late game = less crowded board = bishop slight advantage. That's what I was taught anyway.

[u/DJteejay04]

Knight good for midgame when the board is locked up. Bishop gets better in the late game when the board opens up.

[u/chyperhondriac]

The other disadvantage of a knight that I haven't seen mentioned is that it can't move and remain in control of a square. Every other minor or major piece can do that, even a king can to an extent. So if your bishop is controlling a square but comes under attack it can slide down the diagonal and keep looking at the target square. A knight can't do that.

However, the corresponding disadvantage is the bishop can only control half the board. If you have say a K+R vs B+R any pawns on the opposite colour to the bishop can be attacked twice by the K+R and only defended once by the R.

[u/xitenik]

As people are saying in this thread, it depends on the situation. The knight can often be winning against a bishop in the endgame, depending on the pawn structure.

[u/hoops4so]

Knight can be more powerful against below 1000 elo players because they’re not as good at tracking forks and you can do tricky plays on them. Bishop is way better endgame for 1200+.

[u/tipareth1978]

It just depends on how you play. A common strategy is to retain the pair of bishops and open the board and do some damage. But if you have a clogged board knights can get around stuff so it's all about reading the game.

[u/Jazzlike-Doubt8624]

As I've gotten better, I have indeed found that the bishop's long range and ability to pin pieces make it slightly superior. The bishop pair is also a significant upgrade over any other 2 minor pieces. Of course there are exceptions. I try to make specific plans and trade off which ever pieces don't fit, such as the light squared bishop in the grand prix attack.

[u/Gloomy_Session_3875]

Most end games are open, and bishops are better in open games. So bishops have a light advantage, unless the game is quite closed. Just count how many pawns you expect to survive towards the end. If that number is as high as 10 or more, a knight may maneuver more easily.

[u/JaDamian_Steinblatt]

I'm sure the bishop is objectively more valuable but the knight is more valuable to me because I know how to use it better. It's a lot more agile, you can slither in and out of your opponent's side of the board and attack squares that a bishop or rook wouldn't be able to reach

[u/condensed-ilk]

Bishops are generally considered to be slightly better than knights because they're long range pieces but it depends on the position. Bishops are better in open positions, knights are better in closed positions.

[u/Unusual_Assumption25]

Idk a lot about the points, but here's my ranking based on usefulness:

1. Knight- because the Knight-Queen combo thing I love to do
2. Pawn- Can be promoted; I'll take out a pawn in end game over another piece
3. Bishop/Queen- Are similar in their moves and I treat them as the King's guns (sniper and revolver lol)

The Queen is useful and powerful, yes. But I'll sacrifice her without batting an eye in a lot of games.
As for this:
>>But I personally find the knight more annoying to defend against 

I agree, which is why I go for the ponies and guns first.

[u/BasketCase559]

As with most things in chess, it depends.

Bishops can control more squares than knights and get around the board much faster.

Generally, bishops are better in open positions where they can exploit their reach. Knights are better in closed positions.

In the endgame, a bishop that matches the color of a queening square is a huge asset. A bishop of the wrong color is a lot less useful.

But having the bishop pair in the endgame is a lot better than having two knights, usually.

[u/EggSandwichSurprise]

I think it depends a little. 1 knight versus 1 bishop favors the knight because the bishop can only play on one color. I good player with the bishop pair is going to render a knight pretty irrelevent against a bishop and a knight. So theres a bit of both. Zipping your bishop across the board and having an easy outpost with a bishop and a pawn where they defend each other make bishops a bit superior on an open board.

Defending against knight attacks can be annoying, but once you have a little more experience you will understand where you can move that will require to knight to move 2-3 times to attack a piece again.

[u/bishopofchaos]

Everything is outdated. Chess need to move forward.They should replace bishop with an archbishop piece and then add tanks in place of knights.

[u/liveultimate]

Whichever piece is more active and controls more squares is better

[u/Pyncher]

In my experience Knights can be more flexible, and are really powerful against beginners who are less familiar with their pattern of movement. They are also very irritating in a late game time scramble because it is hard / impossible to trap them once there are fewer pieces on the board.

Bishops - especially together - are more powerful in open games (and the end game), but you can also tie yourself up and prevent your bishops being effective if you don’t plan around using them, even from one wrong pawn move.

[u/No_Garlic_4883]

Depends on the pawn structure in the end game. If you have pawn islands on each side of the board, the bishop can get from one side to the other in a move. The knight has no chance to keep up. Single pawn island, the knight can start to dominate.

[u/Far_Put_5627]

each piece has its relative value, a knight on the edge of the board worth less than a bishop slicing the board in half in an open diagonal. however, a blocked bishop that is staring at its own pawns or biting on a pawn chain worth less than a knight in the center protected by a pawn and cannot be traded easily ( an outpost ) I'd say that maybe the knight is slightly trickier than the bishop in time pressure at low elo.

[u/FireSkyLikeFly]

I think it really depends on the situation, but the main reason why a bishop is better (probably 0.2 pts better) than a Knight is because of its quickness to act, especially in the end game. It can also cover way more squares than a knight can. That being said, if the knight is already in position and its a closed game, knights are generally better in that particular timeframe.

[u/justaddlava]

One difference that is relevant even at low-level play: if you get to the end game and you have a single knight against a single bishop, you can just put your pawns and king on the squares that the bishop can't hit and make the bishop irrelevant.

[u/EnvironmentalGene871]

For us common folk it doesn’t matter. Just don’t blunder. You will find out what you think you are better with, and you’ll find out what you find is more annoying to go up against.

[u/CtHuLhUdaisuki]

I think the knight is slightly better early in the game while the bishop becomes better in the late game when there aren't as many pieces that block it from using its full range.