mayebe youre a bad "rider" .... ah, ah, know what i mean???:D

Um... that's NOT what I meant. Knight can go backwards, sure, but the fact that pawns can eventually turn into queens compensates for their weakness. 

By the way, you wouldn't take a heavily defended knight with a rook, nor would you take a heavily defended pawn, because they rarely pose a threat to me should my opponent possess one. 

However, you sometimes need to sacrifice your rook for a heavily protected bishop, because it might be a big tactical or positional threat, or assisting in a checkmate. That, I can comprehend.

Of course you would take a heavily defended knight with a rook. These kind of exchange sacrifices are very common. Tigran Petrosian made a specialy of them. Everybody knows that a powerfully placed knight, particularly a knight on the 6th rank, can be more valuable that a rook

Maybe. 

Now, I know the prominency of the knight can be taken advantage of only in certain conditions, such as a closed game. I'm just used to playing with bishops.

All I did was talk about how the knight how the knight can be worse than a bishop or the same as a pawn. I meant no insult to any of the players on this site. I just wanted your opinion on the matter, not to make a big fuss over it.

wel saying a knight is like a pawn in any nature is just false ou cant compare the two at all

Bishops are only good in the open games, in closed games bad bishops don't do much more than pawns so it's quite equal

Well, two pawns can trap a knight in a corner, and three on the side. I think that was how the value of the pieces are determined. Therefore (I rephrase), a knight might have the value of two or three pawns.

You may call me insane and such, but I think there is a correlation between the value of the pieces and the number of pawns required to trap that piece. I will make a seperate forum on the matter.

Vulpus, you did not ask for opinions. You declared that knights are overvalued, as if that is common knowledge. If you can't find the power in a good knight, it is your loss. 

For instance, consider the popular Nimzo-Indian defense, a defense used at all rating levels. Why would black give up one of his bishops for a supposedly measly knight? 

For the record, when sacrificing, I usually victimise bishops :-))

The question of knights versus bishops has been debated for a couple of centuries without a firm conclusion. GM Larry Kaufman did a massive study of many thousands of master games and concluded that the two pieces were about equal in value, but that the two bishops (versus two knoghts or a knight and bishop) constitued a real plus.

It's certainly true that advanced passed pawns can make a fool of the knight, but there are also plenty of positions where a single bishop is useless and helpless against a knight because all the actionj is taking place on the wrong colored squares

Where does a horse go poop? 
Anywhere he wants.

Bishops, they can't touch every square on the board, only half of them. Pathetic. 

"Knights are too undervalued"...

Just how undervalued do you think would be appropriate?

THE KNIGHT IS THE MOST IMPOTANT PIECE IN MID GAME STATAGY FOLOWED  THE BY THE BISHOP

No, the king is. 

Lenny would disagree.

Guys cmon, the most important piece in midgame strategy is the pawns..

So, he's suggesting we should buy a lot of Knights and hold them until the market goes to its natural equilibrium point?

When do we cash in?

The middle game revolves around pawns, but the knight is by far the tickiest piece to look out for

That's what Viagra is for

CAPS LOCK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT KEY ON THE KEYBOARD