KNIGHTS ARE TOO UNDERVALUED

I agree with this totally. Knights are so much more powerful during cramped positions or even positions where bishops don't have open lines to operate to their full potential. Knights always have power and basically are very difficult to trap. You can often force someone to trap their bishop(s). Knights are the one piece one could desire more than a queen during promotion.I would only take a bishop if it was mate anyway and I felt like being a prick.The other thing for me that makes me value knights so much is when, I read articles that say Bobby Fischer could take his bishops off the board and beat most players.

There are very rare occasions where one might want to promote to a bishop or rook. I think Bobby could take off any two pieces other than king/queen and beat most players.

Yes, but the difference in value is always <1 pawn. It seems that earning a mere pawn is more important than obtaining the bishop pair advantage

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.It got me to think about the promotion scenarios more than I have in the past.

Sometimes I am a bit narrow minded, after I have opened my mind to the acceptance of something, as a rule, and then closed it again. I have had to really challenge my thinking a lot more, to overcome the tendencies we develope early on as chess players, to help us not move our pieces into danger. We end up having to change our perception of danger as we recognize it. The better we can calculate obviously, the better we can see it.

I realized a potential tactic one could use, to try to confuse their opponent a bit after promotion.It is a two-fold idea. By underpromoting to either a rook or bishop. 

One facets of this when you have your opponent in a situation that has multiple pieces trying to attack for a mate. I have seen where all of these pieces themselves can be under attack too. If part of the complex set of moves involves a promotion, underpromoting could not only through off your opponent off somewhat, in terms of why chose the piece, but they might even get psyched out thinking you have a sure fire mate they can't see and resign, or even do so because, you seem to be just toying with them due to being so in control.

The other potential confusion or added confusion  could be that, they may have had the obvious in mind, when you take a queen after promotion. Simply taking the exact piece you would need to execute your mate, could potentially make it harder for them to see the sequence of moves. Also if they are in a situation where you have those three pieces under attack and it is there turn after you have made a set up move, while trying to get into position for a force, they may get confused about what piece to try to capture. Your lowly rook or bishop might get overlooked, though it is the key to your sequence. Promoting to a queen will cause your opponent to focus more on evading its power in every facet.

I hope this makes sense. I was distracted several times and didn't really get to colloquialize my ideas into more smoothly flowing statements. I was curious if I still have missed something else that could be beneficial from underpromoting?

Could they just put the word often or sometimes after the title so they can rejoin the sober, sensible crowd?

I think you're overthinking it a bit. I was just reffering to the fact that occasionally you must underpromote to avoid stalemate. One of my opponents has done this, but the game was drawn anyways. I already started a thread about that specific game: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/promote-to-bishop

I have known that tactic, but I forgot that scenario. I think too much in some peoples opinion, but I figure out a good bid of stuff just by exercising my spatial reasoning...why stop now...?

Good moves are more powerful than psychological ploys. Unless you have a specific, concrete tactical reason to underpromote, underpromotion is an objective mistake. 

Remember, if you see a bishop will do the job, it can be a double whammy psychologically, if they don't...I wouldn't do it unless it wins or gives me an advantage. I think I might have better luck convincing someone they might lose before they start, than after they can perhaps calculate the reality of the situation.

Acknowledged. Want to play for some money? I'll even give you a point advantange. I'll sub im all my pawns for knights, and you can keep all your pawns and even have two additional ones to place on the board wherever you choose.

Anyone who doesn't believe that knights can be badasses should take a look at this game:

To answer the OP, this game is an excellent example of knights trumping bishops.

That was a joke. Can't you take one?

Listen up guys, first of all, just because my name, pic, and profile suggest a girl, don't be dumb and assume I'm not a boy.

Secondly, although the title says "too undervalued", I actually meant "too overvalued".  Also anywhere I was wrong, I now stipulate "numerous" (and unspecified) conditions so that whatever I said is actually right, please respect my logical conclusions.  I also extrapolate these conclusions based on my very specific examples to general chess values.  If you disagree you didn't read my posts.

Also my main idea, that knigts are on par with pawns, was just a joke, can't you take a joke?

----------------------------

If anything else vulpes, this thread has been fun for me to follow for the loop-da-loop logic train

Many people think queens should be 10. But my queens go to eleven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7IZZXQ89Oc

Thank you, wafflemaster.

Queens are 8, rooks are 4, bishops are 3, knights are 2.5, and pawns are 1.

Hold on. I didn't say anything about queens or rooks. Don't go demoting them now.

Typical girl logic.