20706 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Ok, I know the old saying "A Knight on the rim is dim", and for the most part I totally avoid putting my knights along an edge whenever possible. But I encountered an interesting situation when playing OTB chess with a friend of mine. He isn't as strong as me and I win almost every time and today he played an interesting opening that involved a "knight on the rim". He was white and he often plays pawn on d4 and pawn on e3 as an opening. Then he moved his knight to h3. I silently chuckled and thought I would have an easy time gaining a good position. But next move he played Nf4. I paused and checked out the situation, which looked something like this:
After looking at it, I don't believe it's a bad strategy. It offers interesting possibilities and a more aggressive position than the traditional knight on f3. But a problem I see with it is that it is realatively easy to force the knight to be traded away. Any thoughts?
If you play through master games of chess, you'll find that they have no problem at all putting the knight on the rim. It's one of the first maxims that I ever heard. Maybe in the endgame it's more dangerous to put a knight on the rim if it's knight against bishop, since it could find itself trapped. But in the early stages of the game it is very difficult to take advantage of it, in my view.
The saying doesn't really apply to transitional moves in the opening where the knight jumps to squares like f4 for example. It's actually meant for long-term middlegame situations where your knight is stuck on the edge and not contributing much to the fight.
in the posted position, I don't understand what is that knight doing on f4. I say it would be better placed on f3, where it points at d4 and e5 - and it would have saved a tempo going to this better square.
Then of course you never "chuckle" and expect to win only because your opponent does an inaccuracy.
Shouldn't it be black to move in the given position ? It appears white has made 5 moves and is about to make white's 6th move where black has apparently played only 4 moves...
Currently playing a game where my opponents knight is on the rim and hasn't had a safe square to move to for the last 10 moves, still doesn't. That's dim, would be hard to achieve the same if the knight was in the centre of the board.
He's only showing the board position, white to move is default in creating diagrams.
Only put a knight on the rim if it does something really good that is hard to stop. The problem with rim pieces is their flexibility: When you play Nh3, your main option is to go to f4, although Ng5 might happen sometimes -- in order to do that, you are already telling your opponent you will spend 2 moves on this knight before it does anything. f4 is an ok square, although it's hard to argue that it's better than f3 in most cases. Here, d5 is pretty solid, and the knight on f4 might be kicked away some day -- the knight on f3 has a more secure feel.
So, white's Nh3-f4, especially since he's white, won't lose him the game, but it's not quite as productive as playing Nf3 and developing another piece.
Now, if d5 was a more critical, static weakness, Nh3-f4 might be more relevant -- depending on how weak d5 is, you would have to decide if it's worth spending two tempi on the knight; a lot of times it isn't, though once in a while it can be justified.
And if we were to compare a hypothetical white knight on d4 to a knight on h4 for example: a knight on h4 may eye the f5 square, but the lack of flexibility can be a problem: if f5 somehow gets covered, the knight might look rather silly. On the other hand, a knight on d4 also controls f5, but if f5 gets covered by the opponent, white still has other back up options -- for example, it might jump to b5 instead, or stay on d4 to block up the d file.
If on the other hand Nh4 wins your opponent's queen, then of course the lack of flexibility doesn't matter, as it achieves something clear and hard to prevent.
Another example in favor of a rim knight would be if black had doubled pawns on the kingside, f6 and f7, a pawn on h7, without a g pawn, and black's e pawn is either off the board or not controlling f5. In that case Nh4-f5 is probably a fine maneuver; although white's only option after playing Nh4 is to play Nf5, that's not a big deal, because white knows he will get it to f5 for sure.
replacing lost prices?
by Crappov a few minutes ago
2/13/2016 - Filipp S. Bondarenko, Feenschach 1960
by alexandermeng a few minutes ago
What is a solid opening for white?
by xerxes149 a few minutes ago
Two Knights vs Lone King = Draw?
by Shivsky 3 minutes ago
Coaching in Denmark for 3 months!
by kaynight 3 minutes ago
by macer75 3 minutes ago
Chess in Africa
by Aduamah 6 minutes ago
by macer75 9 minutes ago
by Morphysrevenges 9 minutes ago
new chess.com ???
by ronit_chattaraj 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!