14111 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Indeed, they are. I've come across much too many situations where even a fool could accumulate positional and tactical advantages just by sacrificing a knight for a pawn or two.
Anyone can be happy to offer a knight for the opponent's exposed king or a passed pawn. The dominating reason is that knights are the second-lowest piece by value (in my opinion, anyways) -- sometimes equal to a bishop, whilst other times as worthless as a backwards pawn, which is what makes it okay to sacrifice.
In summary, nobody would mind losing a knight, because it can be easily compensated by a positional advantage most of the time. That's what makes the knight a nuisence on the board.
Q - 9, N - 7, R - 5, B - 3, P - 1
Your topic title does not make sense. You say that knights are undervalued, but then you only say they are good for sacrifices? If I were a knight, I would be grossly insulted.
Hop hop hop royal fork hop hop hop win.
Their strenght in attacking both squares (as opposed to bishops) makes them very tricky. To be honest, in blitz I would prefer knights over bishops. Not because they can be sacrificed like any other piece, but because of their instrinsic powers.
I'm just saying that people often sacrifice knights like they were pawns to initiate an attack (which does contribute to some of my losses).
That's how I play with knights: as decoys or suicide bombers. I don't regard it as being a good attacking piece because of its short range. It depends on the position, though. Most of the time, I find knights worthless.
Also, perhaps I should rename the topic title so it suits the topic at hand better.
The point is that knights are, in most cases, weak.
Maybe the new topic title should be:
KNIGHTS SHOULD BE UNDERVALUED
Q - 9, R - 5, B - 3, N - 1, P - 1
Maybe reduce the value from 3 to 2.5 or 2. Thereabouts.
It's still better than a pawn.
Facepalms have the same problem ,they are often very undervalued yet they are so handy in some situations...Q 9 FP 8 R5 B3 N3 P1
Knights range in value from 6 to 1 in any given possition IMO.
Knights are great attacking pieces, and most positional 'sacrifices' by non masters I see are just blunders.
The actual title of the topic should rather be "when the OP is high on something evil".
Excuse me, but your reasoning is totally ridiculous.
Ok, sweet. I feel like we really solved that ####.
Those knight sacrifices on f7 are generally unsound
Those reasons are perfectly valid.
I just don't find knights as good as people claim it to be. I'm a bishop person, because open positions occur much more frequently than closed positions. In fact, I think knights are poor endgame pieces, as bishops dominate the open board with their long range. In addition, a bishop alone can trap a knight.
I find a bishop to be a positional piece, whilst a knight is a tactical piece. Considering those descriptions, I would almost always select bishops over knights in the opening and the endgame, because the bishop's long range easily contributes to kingside attacks, pawn massacres, and deadly pins and skewers.
Replace the bishop with a knight, and your middlegame and endgame play would be significantly more difficult (in most situations).
I just want people to acknowledge my reasons why I see knights as being on par in value with pawns.
I hereby acknowledge your reasons.
Why you gotta rain on my acknowledgement?
I am sorry but that is kind of silly to say something about a very amazing minor piece being a knight up is almost always a huge deal because the work well with almost every piece not only can the defend well but they attack well knights are key for tactical players along with positional players
Well the bishop vs knight problem is solved. One less chapter for strategy books.
Dude i could write you a million reasons why your reasoning is absurd. Give me 2 knights, 6 pawns a rook and a queen and i will win your 6p, 2B, 1Q, 1R easy, just because you wont understand what to do:) Even your material is slighty stronger...
If you want one of the million reasons - knights can go back, pawns cant. And knight value is from 3 to 2.6 depending on a master who analizes. Theres a lot of books about it... Also for my knights ppl sacrifice rooks...:)
What do you say one move from mating your opponent!
by datfreshmandude a few minutes ago
Judit Polgar would of been able to beat all male champions
by stanhope13 a few minutes ago
amazing draw guys check it out :)
by felixs161 3 minutes ago
music and chess
by DaveKovacsPhil 4 minutes ago
Why Efim Petrovich Geller was much better than Bobby Fischer?
by EFV1728 5 minutes ago
What if you went to a live tournament and no one came except for you?
by pickchua5 5 minutes ago
by felixs161 8 minutes ago
Why does nobody play 1. c3?
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 10 minutes ago
by Crazychessplaya 10 minutes ago
Bobby Fischer Was A Real Champion!
by EFV1728 12 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!