Knight vs. Bishop
Usually, some of the first pieces exchanged in the game of Chess besides the pawn are the Bishop and the Knight. In the End Game do you as a human prefer to use a Knight or Bishop if you have decide on which pieces to exchange, what reasons do you have for this choice?
This is a very loaded question. Depending on whom I am playing and the style in which they play will greatly determine which piece I would be more likely to exchange. Most commonly I would be more likely to exchange a knight. This is simply because I am very fond of my bishop in frontal attacks against my opponent. In other situations however, when my main goal is protecting my king rather than concentrating on my attack I would choose to exchange my bishop in efforts to allow my knights to protect my king as best possible. I find that bishops are more often overlooked by the opposition and can likely take a piece that would give you the advantage. The knight also has this effect however the movement of the knight restricts more of the distance that can be covered and is more vulnerable to having it captured unwillingly.
Name: Chessmaster
Comments: Hello! I think Knight is better. Because in the endgame you move your pawns to the square opposite to your opponents bishop color. So he cannot take your pawns but you can. And also In the middle game in complicated positions knight sacrifise or knight move wins the game. And in most beautiful games mates are made by help of Knights. It is easier to analayse the game after your opponents bishop move. But when your opponent moves his Knight calculation takes time. Even it is a weak move you become confused and intuition says that it will do something bad to you. For example: Kasparov-Radjabov game(2003 21th move), Kasparov-Judit Polgar 1994 game (36th move).
Name: Chessmaster
Comments: The knight is far superior to the bishop. The bishop's line of attack is obvious but not with the knight, he is more tricky. He can attack with a fork, pin or open another piece to attack.