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.

Any thoughts?

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.

Wha~?

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.

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...:)