Which Knight is better?
Sort:
the Kings are not there.
"Better" is a relative term, which requires an operand.
Better for what?
Trick question.....they are all the same since every game is drawn. 
The center only matters if it can achieve an end. Here the knight is as productive in the center, as it would be if it were dead.
Estragon wrote:
1a.
Although they each control 8 squares, 1a's position at d4 controls more squares closer to the center. Each other controls 2 of its 8 squares on an edge of the board.
Thank you Sir Estragon, but I actually Mentioned Diagram 1 and 2 separate from Diagram 1, a and 2, b.
Maybe you doubted.
Anyway, my fault; could have been more clear.
So now we know that the Knight on Diagram 1, a is the absolute best of all 4.
And what if we Compare Knight 1 and 2 with each other?
According to the information you gave me, Knight 2 must be better than Knight 1, right Sir?
The knights in diagrams 1 and 1,a are clearly superior. Their camouflage is perfect, I can hardly make them out in the diagrams. White will never know what hit him.
The other knights, however, are sitting ducks.
Elubas wrote:
The center only matters if it can achieve an end. Here the knight is as productive in the center, as it would be if it were dead.
Estragon and I are talking about these vééérry little Details.
Even if you are Dead you can carry a rather Significiant Detail with yourself, like somebody's Fetisjism may like you [Detail]
HappyUngulate wrote:
The knights in diagrams 1 and 1,a are clearly superior. Their camouflage is perfect, I can hardly make them out in the diagrams. White will never know what hit him.
The other knights, however, are sitting ducks.
I see you 're in the mid-stage of your preppin' Training.
Redglove6 wrote:
Trick question.....they are all the same since every game is drawn.
more Power to DrawMaster, Hooray !!
blueemu wrote:
"Better" is a relative term, which requires an operand.
Better for what?
Better for either Defence, Offense, Handiness, or a Combination of 2 or more of these three.
If there are no other pieces on the board, there is no reason to care about the squares it controls. Control of squares like c4, d3, g6, doesn't have any value when checkmate is impossible for either side. With more pieces on the board, sure, the control of those squares would probably allow some secondary goal to be achieved towards checkmate. But not in the diagrams you have shown.
Elubas wrote:
If there are no other pieces on the board, there is no reason to care about the squares it controls. Control of squares like c4, d3, g6, doesn't have any value when checkmate is impossible for either side. With more pieces on the board, sure, the control of those squares would probably allow some secondary goal to be achieved towards checkmate. But not in the diagrams you have shown.
yé
Elubas wrote:
If there are no other pieces on the board, there is no reason to care about the squares it controls. Control of squares like c4, d3, g6, doesn't have any value when checkmate is impossible for either side. With more pieces on the board, sure, the control of those squares would probably allow some secondary goal to be achieved towards checkmate. But not in the diagrams you have shown.
I mean, it's about Principles, not about Tactics, Positional Play, or Stratagie. Principles.
If we put a Knight on an Empty Board, and we put a Bishop on another Empty Board, we can see after Calculation, that the Bishop is by Objectiviness better than a Knight, Since the Bishop can control more Squares than a Knight.
You know the Saying '' Knights before Bishops. ''?
Yes, that is, because a Bishop is a more Complexer Piece than a Knight, and it's a better Piece.
Knight are easier told where to go than a Bishop, than Rook, and than Queen.
But we always got these folks that want Tactics, Tactics, Tactics!
Yes, if you have that mindset, I am not Surprised that you didn't understand what I mentioned in the Diagrams.
Principles are the farthest off Tactics; they are the least Important in the game of Chess, Generally, I think.
Estragon understood my Question.
I quote his reply to this Topic:
1a.
Although they each control 8 squares, 1a's position at d4 controls more squares closer to the center. Each other controls 2 of its 8 squares on an edge of the board.
And so I realised, That when you move the Knight either side from Position 1, a, The Knight has always more, if not equal, squares to go to, next.
In some cases, an f4 white knight is just as effective as an e5 black knight. f6 and d3 knights both have their values, they just control different squares.
Like I said, what's the point of controlling squares if they lead to nowhere?
In a hypothetical position, if there is one white knight on d4, but another white knight on h4 that is attacking a queen on g6 (ready to take it), then clearly we are more happy about the knight on the rim. This is what I mean when I say it depends on what function the piece achieves towards winning the game.
You say a piece can be better "objectively," but I'm not sure how square control is an "objective" way of valuing a piece. It seems subjective to me that you consider strength of a piece based on its square control. I mean, yes, square control is not a matter of opinion, but whether that determines which piece is stronger, is a matter of opinion.
I'm not sure how you could know of my style from my posts in this thread, but in any case, I am a positional player stylistically.
Elubas wrote:
The center only matters if it can achieve an end. Here the knight is as productive in the center, as it would be if it were dead.
Agreed. The knight's strength has to be measured y the position; this question is rather pointless. There are an infinitude of hypothetical positions, so analyzing them is not productive.
Elubas wrote:
Like I said, what's the point of controlling squares if they lead to nowhere?
In a hypothetical position, if there is one white knight on d4, but another white knight on h4 that is attacking a queen on g6 (ready to take it), then clearly we are more happy about the knight on the rim. This is what I mean when I say it depends on what function the piece achieves towards winning the game.
You say a piece can be better "objectively," but I'm not sure how square control is an "objective" way of valuing a piece. It seems subjective to me that you consider strength of a piece based on its square control. I mean, yes, square control is not a matter of opinion, but whether that determines which piece is stronger, is a matter of opinion.
I'm not sure how you could know of my style from my posts in this thread, but in any case, I am a positional player stylistically.
I am not Sporadically sub-normal in Tactics.
not unreguarly, The most easiest Tactics I cannot Spot, like my Queen attacking a Knight ( And than I make an uneccesary Defensive move because I !cannot see! that my Queen attacks a Knight. )
To give prove; I can get lost in my own City, not knowing where my Destination was again, because my Spatial Awareness is like very bad.
I have been lost more often this way in Territory I actually shouldn't get lost in.
I have Performed an IQ-test twice, and Twicely I scored sub-normal.
My Brain performs in a Highly indirect way, since in direct thinking, I am not the very best.
I am insecure ( therefore ), and so I inter alia ask these kind of questions to get more Security. If I lose a Game of Chess, I think '' in General ''; I call a General Chess Principle in my head, or Principles ( which I have read enough Online and in the Book { Chess, Words of Wisdom } due to my non-self-Confidence ) that I did wrong, rather than looking abstractly & Concretely.
But you 're right; chess is too Broad to look with an '' in General '' Perspective. Chess is really less ' looking ahead ' than ' thinking broad '.
Tactical awareness is only received due to ( uneccesary ) long thinking.