discuss

>>46601139
Unlimited range and linear movement vs single stock movement pattern? Gimme a bishop any day.

File: 1450312890464.jpg (38KB, 345x224px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 345x224px

Too stupid for chess desu.

>>46601139
Most relative valuations place the bishop as slightly higher in value than the knight, though they are admittedly only generalizations.

>>46601139
Bishop got nerfed in the new eddition.

>>46601139
My bishop uses WOLOLO on your knight!

>>46601176
but also, the bishops are limited to their black and white tiles, you can't connect them and they can't jump pieces

>knight transitions color with every move (iirc)
>knight has alot of erratic movement options
>better for short term kill-that-piece plans
>best counter to a queen
vs
>bishop can never leave the color it starts on
>methodical movement that has difficulty dealing with keeping up with most other pieces
>best suited for longer lasting defensive moves
>directly trumped by a queen

knight is the clear win from my pleb opinion

>>46601139
Knight is good for forking, for unexpected movement from some people, and one of the few ways to "safely" get a queen. It also isn't blocked by anything short of a capture, but can happily block other pieces.

Bishops are a bit more predictable by some. They do a great job of covering stationary pawns, and two can block off a section of the board to kings/pawns. They're also rather effective at trapping Knights, ironically enough. However, it's easy for them to get stuck in front of or behind lines without proper planning. Most people aren't going to fall for a bishop attack outside a lance or pin.

Bishops are quite good at pins, in my experience.

>>46602660
Oh, and I forgot to mention: two Knights can cover one another while also attacking a large number of squares on the board. Two bishops do not have a way of covering one another nearly as well.

>>46601139
Weak bait.

>>46603891
Weak post.

>>46601139
Knights are the best because you can hide them behind pawns.

Only plebs think knights are better

This is because plebs don't know how to handle the pieces effectively and since knights are more unique they take longer to learn to use. So a beginner thinks knights are great because they win/lose a lot more games due to the actions of a knight than those of a bishop.

Bishops have a longer range which can be crucial in the endgame. They're "faster".They combine better with other pieces when attacking. And they can completely dominate a knight. A pair of bishops is a major tool. A pair of knights is just a minor annoyance. If you're left with 2 knights and your opponent has only a king you still can't win.

Knights have their uses, and are especially effective in a closed game with very little prospect of the position opening up. But all else being equal an experienced player will always choose a bishop over a knight.

>>46601204
Yeah, same. It's not as if I don't know the rules, either. I just lose every time I play. Every single time.

>>46601139
It depends, but the reverse holds in general.

A more interesting question would be: Do you prefer a bishop vs bishop (same color) endgame or knight vs knight?

>>46601204
>High school
>special ed students have their own class room where it's their permanent homeroom
>They never mingle with the rest of us, kind of segregated.
>Special ed students across all four years mingle in this one room for school, for all four of the years they'll be present
>Among other things, they play chess.
>Every day, for eight hours, eight hours out of five days for seven months
>For one day at the end of my senior year, kind of in that "fuck it" senior mode, end up in with the special ed kids mostly to hang out with the awesome ex-army ranger special ed teacher
>Bullshitting and such, eventually pick up a game because, why not? I sort of know the rules
>Get raped
>Constantly, over the course of two hours
>try to pretend I'm not paying attention because I'm mostly here for the teacher
>but man, the other kid across from me always had this spittle-laden shirt and half-open maws breathing old milk in my direction
>Just mercilessly, constantly, without even a good fight beaten game after game
>The retards rotate out while I bullshit with the Gulf War vet
>and they're kind of shit talking me
>they're simpletons so it's barely coherent shit talk
>But that fact alone makes it worse
>Eventually Mr. Anderson there starts getting in on it, telling me how bad it is for me
>At some point, dignity tells me to cut this shit out and pull out
>I bullshit a reason and excuse myself from the room to skip class for the rest of the day
>Mostly spending that ruminating about how a group of special needs students repeatedly whip my ass at chess

Tricky knights, tricky knights! Watch out for those deadly, deadly knight forks.

>>46604368
maybe you don't know how to use them right you idiot

Depends on the game. Knights are more annoying to play against.

>>46601139
Knights are better for capturing and forks.
Bishops are better for area denial and defense.

Knight is useful in early- and mid-game, while bishop is useful in mid-game and late-game.

In the end, they are just tools.
Pick one appropriate to your task.

>>46605330
Bishop's ending is more skilled I guess, Knights' ending is more of a horse race (kek) unless any side already fucked up and is far from the center of the board.

>>46604368
>If you're left with 2 knights and your opponent has only a king you still can't win.
but that's also true of two bishops, isn't it?
>sneak them into a corner
>king kills the first bishop played next to it

Later editions are for casual plebs who can't even make queen moves right.

Fucking faggots.