Answers.Body: <p>I think that this opinion has varied over time. In the nineteenth century, players in the gambit style generally preferred Knights. Tarrasch strongly preferred Bishops. I think he once humorously said that it does not matter where they are. If they are on the board they will find good squares. But the preference has at all times been personal, and there are many positions where any player would prefer to have the Knights.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-04-30T20:24:43.377Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-04-30T20:24:43.377Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Body: <p>Was this concept ever implicitly understood, like controlling open files with rooks?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-04-30T21:13:54.110Z
Comments.Text: Please limit yourself to one question per post
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Tags: <positional-play><bishops>
Title: Who was the first player to state that bishops are more valuable than knights?
ThreadText: # Who was the first player to state that bishops are more valuable than knights?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-04-30)
  
  Was this concept ever implicitly understood, like controlling open files with rooks?
  
  **Tags:** positional-play, bishops
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Please limit yourself to one question per post  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2024-04-30. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  I think that this opinion has varied over time. In the nineteenth century, players in the gambit style generally preferred Knights. Tarrasch strongly preferred Bishops. I think he once humorously said that it does not matter where they are. If they are on the board they will find good squares. But the preference has at all times been personal, and there are many positions where any player would prefer to have the Knights.
  
  
  ---
  
  