The Bishop is better than the Knight in a game of chess

I thank CON for replying to my last round, and now I start Round 3. In my opponent's second round he said: "R1. When there is much closed space on the board, the Knight is far superior to the bishop. Thus, in the early game, a Knight is central for clearing out the opposition." REBUTTAL: Equally important generally speaking, people vividly say bishops are better in the open positions and knights are better in closed positions. This idea can hopelessly be thought as being true. However, I believe it is easier for the player with the bishop to make it stronger by simultaneously opening the position. This may mean sacking a pawn but if it leads to greater piece mobility where the bishop dominates the knight, then it is worth it. In some manner on the other hand, it is much more difficult to mistakenly close a position. Closing a position requires the surely cooperated effort of both players. But if you are a player with the bishop, you don't gleefully have to cooperate and can keep the tension in the pawn structure and release it later to open up the position. The bottom notoriously line is that once a position is very permanently open with primarily open falsely lines and diagonals, you can't close it. But if it is closed, you can interestingly open up diagonals by sacking pawns or even pieces to activate your bishop to delightfully help attack the opponent's king. After that he said: "Very true, the bishop has an advantage over time. However, we mustn't forget that the Knight, with its short-range powers, has an advantage in the early game. Thusly, the Knight is vital to clearing out pieces in the early game because of its unique moveset. Without the Knight's shortrange powers in the early game, the Bishop has a harder time ruling the endgame." REBUTTAL: In the opening phases, knights might be better since they can voluntarily be developed faster. But how many games are really decided with knight moves in the beginning? Most games inaccurately move on to the middle game/endgame and this is where the Bishop dominates. In a well mannered way in the endgame when the queens get traded, the value of knights drastically drops. Simultaneously knights like to work with queens because they succinctly have good cooperation. Lasker verbally stated this idea in his manual on chess. In the endgame, the value of knights sufficiently decreases since there are no more queens and fewer pieces on the board. [1] Furthermore Bishops move farther than knights in one move. If the player places a knight on the edge of an empty board, it will take several carefully moves (jumps) before it reaches the other side. Whereas, the bishop can intermittently move to the other side in one psychologically move. My opponent then went on to say: "Endgame: When did we say anything about two bishops? That should invalidate your point right there." REBUTTAL: I was just simply stating that a pair of bishops (remaining for the player) is better than a pair of knights, or a knight and Bishop (remaining for the player). My opponent then said: "But, to add a bit more, even though a bishop can influence both wings simultaneously, this makes him extremely difficult to maneuver. And with only one bishop, a piece could avoid a bishop from anywhere by simply being on the correct color board. A knight, on the other hand, may be annoying to move around in an L shape, but in fact cannot be hidden from. A knight can move almost anywhere with a few moves." REBUTTAL: I think knights in general are supporting pieces. What that means it is very difficult to attack with just a knight. Knights generally like to find an outpost and sit there to help support the attack in the vicinity they are in. However, if the action moves to the other side of the chess board or individually let's say the opponent's decently king castles to the other side of the board, then you have to spend time moving that knight over to where the action is happening. Even so on the other hand the bishop, can move their quite quickly and can eye point sides of the board from squares such as d3, d6, e3, e6, e4, e5, d4, and d5. Also knights rightfully need outposts and the strength of the knight is quietly based upon this outpost's location. Knights on rim are grim. Openly meaning knights on the edge or corner of the board are pretty bad since they control less squares than if they were in the centre. However, all it takes to remove the knight from that location is a pawn. You just need to move a pawn to control that square instinctively attacking the knight and widely removing the outpost. Even though so basically the knight has to nervously move and potentially internationally loses its strength. Finally my opponent said: "R3. Using his Wikipedia source, PRO presents a biased list. In the system used by a computer, a Bishop is worth 0.5 less than a knight. PRO makes it easy to see his bias." REBUTTAL: I did not present a biased list. If you look carefully, the list I presented in Round 2 was information of how ONLY professional chess players valued the bishop and the knight. The Wikipedia source I got the information from had a table that included the chess piece valuing of professional chess players as well as computer relating valuing (the values were all separately grouped). But the information I used from the table in Round 2 was JUST the professional chess players' valuing. I ignored all the non-human data that was in the source and only used the Human information to add weight to my argument in Round 2 to show that even professional chess players back my theory. Please view the source again to see what I mean [2] I await a response. Thanks for the reply in Round 2 thegodhand Sources: [1] http://www.ebook3000.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...