Knights can clearly be a great help during surprise attacks..

But bishops are perhaps a bit............you know??????

I think range, which the bishops have is important during a game rather than the knights "L's".........

I disagree w/ a previous comment in that the bishop has good value in the opening game, it just tends to be more defensive in nature during that part of the game.

bishops are the martyrs in chess

So.... They both are best depending on the Board!

2nd diagram: Bxh7#

1st diagram: It will take 7 moves to get the B @ b2 to e5. And I'm talking about: No black interference after move 2, and a Q sac.

2nd diagram: Bxh2#. The B@b2 is defending h8, g7.

I think the knight is valuable throughout the whole game, but mainly in the openning and mid-end game. This is because of its ability to jump over crowds, and it is most commonly used for forking the opponent. The bishop, on the other hand, is valuable mostly in mid-game, because the board is less crowded and it can cross the board in one move.

 Nice!   The situation is 

 df

It is one of the very rare times that i can totally agree with someone.

Very nice analysis Pyke,thank you.

Like Pyke said,chess is not an equation,but many mathematical calculations are involved and although the chain hierarchy some pieces count more or much more than others,or be almost the same,...these standards change from the infinite different positions that can occur in this spectacular game.

In the Bishop Vs Knight,i would agree that it depends on which positions we have in order to choose which is preferable(closed or opoen like the above analysis),but no piece is identical with another and if i had to choose between these two pieces,i would choose the Bishop,mainly for my own reasons ...

Honestly, I think it's a cop out to say that piece X is better in position A, and piece Y is better in position B. It may be true; but it's equally true of all pieces. Pawns are better when they are on the 7th rank then the 2nd, rooks are better when they are on open or semi-open files, and Queens are better when they're able to move freely about the board.

Despite this, we still objectively say the Queen > the Rook > Minor Pieces > Pawns. There are obviously circumstances, limited in scope they may be, where one might sacrifice a Queen to save a pawn, but, again, this does not make the pawn more valuable in a generic sense... Nor does it offer much in the way of a teaching point to those wishing to learn the game.

It is also, fairly well established, that the Bishop Pair is more powerful than either a Knight Pair or a Mixed Pair; suggesting that if 2X > X+Y and 2X > 2Y, that X must be better than Y... Of course, Chess is not an equation; and Bishops function dramatically different individually, than in pairs. The lack of access to 32 squares, for example, is an issue. At the end of the day though, the Bishop can cross the board quickly, and it can defend the piece defending it in pawn endgames. Knights can't. Knights are also vulnerable to pawn endgames where, their limited range can be exploited.

I would not be prepared to say, never give up a Bishop for a Knight; there are plenty of positions that would be advantageous to do so because, they create advantages for you; but, I would be prepared to say that if I have the choice, I'll hang on to my Bishops... and as far as I'm concerned, that preference is enough to tell me which is better for me.

that was a good post but that knight is crucial if you know how to use it

Your comments explain it pretty clearly, to my thinking.  Things get a little cloudier when it is one bishop against one knight in an endgame, but again, if you can find a way to keep the bishop bottled up, or keep your pawns and pieces off the bishop's color, the knight has a better chance of winning.

I would say that bishops are better in the endgame, and knights in the opening.

i'm not sure which is better