The bishop is superior to the knight.

Thank you, Torvald, for your response. Before continuing, I'd just like to first apologize for the illegibility of my previous round. Needless to say, if it had actually looked like that when I clicked "review" then I wouldn't have also clicked "submit".Also, before refutting my opponent's claims, I'd like to address something he said in his closing statements: "I will not deny that the bishop is a valuable piece (though seldom ranked higher than fourth-most important) [...]". If you are reading this debate, then I hope it's clear to you that the king is obviously the first-most important piece in Chess. Directly below that is the queen, whose unparalleled maneuverability easily makes it the most dangerous. The third-most important piece is the rook due to its ability to threaten a whole file and rank simultaneously.Therefore, if I can convince you that the bishop is the fourth-most important piece, then I have done my job well in this debate. Forking/Pinning/Skewering PotentialI admit, the knight is quite formidable in regards to its ability to fork (threaten multiple pieces simultaneously). Unlike what Torvald must do in regards to pinning and skewering and checkmating potentials, however, I cannot completely concede this point, as it is at least possible for the bishop to perform a fork. The practical uses are rarer but by no means unheard of.My opponent says it's easier to perform a fork with a knight than a pin with a bishop because more pieces can fall victim to the latter than the former. In other words, a knight can threaten to capture any piece on the board without putting itself in danger of being captured by the threatened piece itself, except (of course) another knight.However, according to my opponent, the bishop can only threaten to capture three out of the six pieces without this danger. I can only assume he means the king, the pawn, and the knight, as these are the three pieces that cannot move indefinitely in a straight line. (Of course, the king can't be pinned as it must always move out of the way of danger if possible, but it can be skewered.) My opponent seems to forget, however, that even though a rook can move in a straight line, it won't be able to capture a bishop that's pinning it (or at all threatening to capture it on the next move).It's true that a bishop and a queen will be able to retaliate against a pinning bishop, but it's not so difficult to protect your bishop from this with a mere pawn in an adjacent file. That way, if your opponent does retaliate with his/her bishop or queen, you can take it with your pawn.It's an obviously worthwhile trade to give up a bishop for your opponent's queen. But even trading a bishop for a bishop can be tactically advantageous if in doing so you gain an open file (a file unoccupied by one of your pawns), which are very useful for engaging your rooks.Space LimitationsA bishop is forever bound to travel along only the same-colored tiles as it originally started on, which each make up half the board. Despite this, though, the bishop can have a lot more options available to it during open positions. As Torvald noted that David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld noted, the bishops should be used in tandem so they can cover all spaces of the board. I've already conceded the knight has an advantage during closed positions, but almost just as midgame begins, the bishop can travel to (and therefore threaten and/or defend) more spaces than the knight and that advantage only grows larger as the match goes into endgame.Evaluations of GrandmastersMy opponent uses this point to conclude that bishops and knights are equally valuable, but as stated in the debate's instigation, this isn't enough. Torvald must do more than convince us that maybe the knight is just as good as the bishop. He must convince us that the knight is better.Checkmating potentialThis point must be conceded by my opponent.