# Play online chess!

Question for the Mentors
« Back to club forum
FromMessage
17-Jan-13, 04:32

Question for the Mentors
I know that in Chess scoring a knight and bishop are the same at 3 points. duh---But in the end-game, I usually would much rather have a bishop opposed to a knight, especially when the kings start moving around the board. Because of this, I try usually try not to trade a bishop for a knight during a game (I realize that there are extenuating circumstances) but, as a general rule, do you feel that this mantra is sound?
 jstevens117-Jan-13, 05:22

Two bishops are certainly better than two knights!
Hi everyone!

..... although I did manage to draw a game when I had the knights, it was a real struggle, believe you me!

Here is the game.

gameknot.com

Kind regards

Joanne
 caveman196017-Jan-13, 05:33

BvN
I read some where once that in a reasonably open position pawns on both sides of the board that a Bishop was worth 3&1/3 (three and a third)being the numerical value of one tempi.And a pawn was worth 3 tempi.Would this be a reasonable accurate rule of thumb?
 stalhandske17-Jan-13, 06:23

bishop vs. knight
The basic "rule" is that a bishop and a knight are both "worth" 3 units, where a unit is the nominal value of one pawn (I don't understand caveman's numerical value of a tempo).

However, the relative value of bishop vs knight is very much dependent on the actual position. Generally, bishops gain relative value in open positions, but the "colour" of the bishop also matters crucially (LSB or DSB). In some positions a bishop may have much reduced practical value if its movements are severely restricted by pawns (either your own or the opponent's) on squares of the same colour.
 theanalogkid17-Jan-13, 19:51

It sounds like Caveman has read some Lasker?? Although somewhat difficult to read, I think due to the translation, his manual listed point values for various things, such as having the plus off one put two moves and such things as he mentioned, and then some. Although, as mentioned, difficult to read, Lasker opened my mind to concepts and thought processes in the game, that must of the other books I looked at over the yearsfailed to mention. Laker is therefore one of my favorite, as I believe he actually revealed a few of the "secrets" to a better game, rather than just more variations of the same old exercises and teachings.
 ptitroque18-Jan-13, 03:03

What I try, as soon as my opponent has only one bishop left is to set as much pieces as possible on the opposite colour. One doesn't have the same problem with knights. Furthermore, if the knights are on the center even at game's end, they control quite a large number of squares and menace to forks attacks
 jstevens119-Jan-13, 06:55

Here is a recent example of how knights can be better than bishops in an endgame
Hi everyone!

Here is a game in which my opponent, Xenophon (whose rating is now only 23 points south of Expertdom) demonstrated that knights are better than bishops. I lost that game. I annotated it today and thought I would put it on here as it is relevant to the above discussion.

gameknot.com

Hope you all have a good read.

Kind regards

Joanne