# Whats better two bishops, or two knights?

So I was sitting around playing chess the other day and I thought which is better two bishops or two knights, as both add up to six points each? Well I think that I figured it out. On an empty board you can che

ckmate a player with two bishops, but you can't do it with two knights. Watch my diagram. If anyone out there knows how to checkmate with two knights please let me know. Okay and here's the two knights version . . .

. . . Okay so you see that when you have two knights, th

ere has to be a stalemate before white can checkmate.

• 11 months ago

2 bishops are almost always better than 2 knights

• 7 years ago

Miguel Illescas told Yasser Seiriwan during the WCC match in Bonn last fall, that working with Vladimir Kramnik (as a second and trainer for the 2000 match with Kasparov) deepened his appreciation of the bishop pair.

• 7 years ago

Well i'd say bishop are better because they are more useful in the endgame but when it is a closed game surely knights are better and bishop in open games, you cant compare bishop and knight because 1 can checkmate and the other can't.

• 7 years ago

I agree with the above.  In a closed position (lots of pawns left), the bishops are blocked but the knights can leap over the pawn chains.  In an open position (pawns gone, most pieces gone), bishops have the advantage because they can reach both ends of the board quickly, but knights would have to take a series of steps to hop from one end of the board to the other.

• 7 years ago

knights in closed games, bishops in open games

• 7 years ago

The question tends to be about open and closed positions. In a closed position

a bishop may end up "bad" . This means that the Bishop is shut out of the action, because of the pawn structure. Knights can move more freely because they are not stuck on one color.

I suppose the answer is "depends". I hope you find this a useful comment.