I have a problem with defense against knights ---any comments will be appreciated.

Good post, tactician. Any more responses to hptchess on how to evaluate a game, especially in the middle game?

The way I evaluate a position is something like this: Is the material the same? If not then do I (or does he) have any compensation for it? Is that compensation substantial? Are his pieces developed? Are mine? Can he create good outposts, files, diagnals which would improve his piece/s. Can I? Can he create a passed pawn? Can I? Can he exchange a piece to improve his position? Can I? Can he gain space? Can I? And so on. Based on all that and a lot more you can usually see who is better unless it's some grandmaster position in which the position will usually be good for both sides. Then when making a move I ask myself what my opponent's plan is? I look at what it is and then I look for a way to stop it while trying to continue with my own.

Is there an objective way to evaluate a game?  I suspect that many people evaluate their own... and based on a chance comment or game decide.  Not likely very accurate, but with lasting effect on the person's idea of their level of play.