Are Bishops more valuable than Knights?

Question

Bishops and Knights are both traditionally considered to have a similar value, worth roughly three pawns each. However, I have heard arguments that under certain circumstances they are not so closely comparable. Are there situations where Bishops are more valuable than Knights, or vice versa? What factors should I weigh when considering a trade-off, for example?

Answer 1

There's a lot that can be said on this topic, but here are some of the factors that enter into my decision making process:

1. I have a personal preference for Bishops over Knights. This has nothing to do with their inherent value, but is simply because I tend to utilize Bishops better. It's worth considering whether you have a penchant for one over the other, because your personal play style may determine which is more valuable for you.
2. In general, Knights are better early in the game and Bishops are better late in the game. This is because, in the early game pawns tend to obstruct Bishops, while Knights can move more freely.
3. There can also be a difference in value between Bishops (the so-called Good Bishop and Bad Bishop). If most of your pawns are on black squares, your "white" Bishop (the one on white squares) has greater freedom of movement (Good Bishop), while your "black" Bishop's movement will be hindered by your pawns (Bad Bishop). Your Good Bishop probably has a higher value than your Bad Bishop at that point. A common tactic is to trade your Bad Bishop for your opponent's Good Bishop. This can create a slight advantage. You might also trade your Bad Bishop for one of your opponent's Knights.
4. Although it's a generalization, two Bishops or two Knights tend to be more valuable than one of each. This is because the like pairs tend to work better together. Engineering exchanges that result in you keeping either two Bishops or two Knights and your opponent only having one of each, may result in a small advantage for you.

Obviously, these are generalizations that may not always apply. Chess is a complex game and the situation on the board dictates what makes the most sense, but they are reasonable rules-of-thumb and worth keeping in mind.

Answer 2

• The value of the pieces depends of course on the position. I've heard from sources like NM Dan Heisman that knights are considered to be worth closer to 4 pawns right at the start of a game, and that both knights and bishops on average are worth a "tad" more than 3 pawns.
• Knights usually rule closed positions (where pawns obscure most or all of the diagonals) while bishops usually are very powerful in wide open positions.
• Having an untouchable outpost knight (i.e. it can't be threatened by opponent pawns, it is supported by a pawn, on a square of the opposite color of your opponent's only bishop where he has no knights left) deep in opponent territory or even in the center can be worth as much as a rook in some cases because it's very hard to get rid of without giving up the exchange (rook for knight).
• Others have already mentioned the bishop pair (having two bishops while your opponent does not have two bishops is called "having the advantage of the bishop pair" and is worth on average about half a pawn).
• And as another tidbit, remember that two bishops + king vs. king can force checkmate while two knights + king vs. king cannot force checkmate.

Answer 3

Great answers here, however there are a couple of factors that I have not seen addressed.

The concept of "Good bishop" vs. "Bad bishop" has been mentioned, but it is worth clarifying that having most of your pawns on one color is not sufficient to make that color bishop a "bad bishop". If the bishop is outside of your pawn perimeter, it can still be quite effective, although its avenues of escape may be somewhat limited. A "bad bishop" typically refers to one that is trapped within your pawn perimeter, and therefore cannot threaten any of your opponents pieces, and therefore is forced to remain as a very limited defensive capacity.

Another key difference between knights and bishops is pinning versus forking. As has been mentioned, knights are more effective than bishops at forking. Bishops can fork, but it is far less common than knights forking.

However, knights are completely unable to pin, or skewer, another piece. At higher levels of play, where you can safely expect that your opponent will be able to spot potential knight forks, the pin becomes more valuable.

Finally, the overall long-range capability of the bishop makes is more valuable in many end-games. A knight will take several turns to move from one side of the board to another, whereas a bishop can do this in one or two moves. This puts the knight at a severe disadvantage any time you are trying to put pressure on the king on one side, while trying to cope with an advancing pawn threatening promotion on the other side of board (or pawns on either side of the board, as Steven describes).

Answer 4

Michael mentioned this in passing, but it's worth making explicit: a lot of the bishop's endgame value comes from its range, and specifically in circumstances with pawns on either side of the board. For instance, pawns on b2 and g2 vs. a lone black knight should be a win for the pawns, whereas with a bishop black can straightforwardly capture both pawns.

Answer 5

As a general rule of thumb, Knights are better in closed positions, and Bishops are better in open ones. Bishops are usually considered slightly better than Knights because they move faster, and you can force mate with 2 Bishops and the lone King vs opponent's lone King; something you cannot force with 2 Knights. It is really situational. With as many times as I have missed Knight forks and Knight moves made by my opponents over the years, I never underestimate Knights. If I am up the exchange, I would rather it be Rook vs. Bishop than Rook vs. Knight. It really is all situational. I think the value of 3 points for Bishop and Knight is correct. Although I have seen various books list the Bishop at 3.25 points; 3.5 points; and even as high as 4 points. Most have Bishop and Knight as 3 points each.

Answer 6

One reason for trading a bishop for a knight is to inflict "doubled pawns" on an opponent. (It's possible but less likely the other way around.)

Former World Champion Jose R Capablanca felt that knights were more valuable with queens on the board (because their moves are "different"), and bishops more valuable after queens were exchanged. In one epic game (against Marshall), he had a bishop versus knight, and traded his queen plus a pawn for Marshall's queen, just to reverse the relationship.

Answer 7

Todd wrote up a great answer, and points 2, 3, and 4, of his response are spot on.

My only addition would be to state that my preference for knights is based on the following:

1. For whatever reason, even at low-to-mid level play, you can often "surprise" your opponents with a knight. Their non-linear movement pattern means that in one to two turns your knight can be wreaking havoc in ways your opponent was not anticipating. This is less true at higher levels of play, but in general I find that setups with bishops are usually involving pins and get telegraphed pretty easily.
2. In late game bishops do have the ability to travel the board faster but if you are stuck with one bishop the king merely has to stay off the same colored squares ("hot lava!"). The bishop will have to be the "assisting" piece while some other pawn or piece actually performs the mate.
3. I'm personally partial to the ability of a knight to fork pieces without being in the line of fire for immediate retaliation. That is, bishops have less utility to me when it comes to forking queens or other bishops in that they have to put themselves in danger to perform the fork. This is, of course, entirely dependent on the context of the situation.

I'm upvoting Todd's post, but just wanted to offer some counterpoint regarding my personal bias towards knights.