Very interesting idea. It is somewhat related to an 'immobilizer', which prevents pieces in a certain range to move at all. This weaker form would only prevent them to move beyond a certain square.
The advantage compared to a normal Knight would evaporate completely after all sliders have been traded out of the game.
The advantage compared to a normal Knight would evaporate completely after all sliders have been traded out of the game.
That would mean only kings and knights on the board, which is usually a draw anyway, correct?
Even pawns are relevant, because they can threaten to promote to a queen.
A few questions:
These are very important questions! If the answers are "no", "no", and "n/a", then a knight would still be no more powerful than a rook, and perhaps even slightly less valuable. On the other hand, if all 3 answers are "yes", then a knight would be worth significantly more than a rook, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be close to a queen in value.
A few questions:
These are very important questions! If the answers are "no", "no", and "n/a", then a knight would still be no more powerful than a rook, and perhaps even slightly less valuable. On the other hand, if all 3 answers are "yes", then a knight would be worth significantly more than a rook, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be close to a queen in value.
1. Yes, only to enemy pieces are restricted by the knight. Our samuria will allow his crew
2. Yes, pieces can not move into controlled by knight squares and they can not cross over them as well.
3. Pawns would be blocked but not knights. Enemy knights will not be blocked, I mean they are knight, they are able to pass it. Knights will not be affected by this power of enemy knight. They can easily pass through it.
Okay, so (to make sure I understand) after 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6, White is allowed to play 3. Nxd5, but cannot play 3. exd5?
In any case, based on your other answers, I would guess that the augmented knight (or "samurai") is worth at least 7-8 pawns, and quite possibly 8-9 pawns, since any piece (including the king!) protected by it would be invulnerable to anything but an enemy knight (well, assuming I've interpretted your answers correctly). In particular, two augmented knights defending one another in the center would be overwhelmingly powerful.
Okay, so (to make sure I understand) after 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6, White is allowed to play 3. Nxd5, but cannot play 3. exd5?
In any case, based on your other answers, I would guess that the augmented knight (or "samurai") is worth at least 7-8 pawns, and quite possibly 8-9 pawns, since any piece (including the king!) protected by it would be invulnerable to anything but an enemy knight (well, assuming I've interpretted your answers correctly). In particular, two augmented knights defending one another in the center would be overwhelmingly powerful.
well, need to ponder on it. Based on my answers, what you wrote would be the case. It sounds strange. But why not? That would be a great innovation into the game, when white thinks of 2.Nc3 he would need to evaluate the possibility of Nf6. In any case, both opponents would need to consider the possible knight prevention. Knights would really be very strong. As of now, knights lack long range attacks but this power would compensate for the lack of their lack long range power.
Knights would be the best defender and when used in attack it would paralyse enemy camp, it would infiltrate it, it would disconnect enemy pieces.
Queen vs Knight? Which would be stronger?
Okay, so (to make sure I understand) after 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6, White is allowed to play 3. Nxd5, but cannot play 3. exd5?
In any case, based on your other answers, I would guess that the augmented knight (or "samurai") is worth at least 7-8 pawns, and quite possibly 8-9 pawns, since any piece (including the king!) protected by it would be invulnerable to anything but an enemy knight (well, assuming I've interpretted your answers correctly). In particular, two augmented knights defending one another in the center would be overwhelmingly powerful.
your second question made me think twice.
If enemy pieces are restricted from moving the square controlled by knight as well, it may become to powerfull. Then what if we make it they can move to the square and if samurai allows it to survive it can go beyond that square? Like this:
In this position, black rook can move to h5 (but not to h6, rook would need to wait for the next move to go beyond that square) to give check. White Samurai can decide to kill it or to let it go. samurai is pinned, so he decides to save her queen and moves his king, then rook is liberated from samurai's range and now can move to h6, h7, g5, f5, e5 or d5 but not to c5 since that is beyond the range of the samurai.
I did not decide yet, which would be better for the more interesting game?
I've now thought about it awhile, and my general feeling is that the stronger form of knight/samurai (which prevents enemy pieces from moving onto the squares it controls, in addition to blocking all passage over those squares) would probably generate more interesting gameplay than the alternative versions would. While it's true that the resulting material balance (with 6 of the 32 pieces in the starting position having a value that is equal or similar to that of a queen) would be rather unorthodox for an 8x8 chess variant, the extra power comes in the form of a second promising mechanic; instead of just adding indirect interference, you'd be bringing both indirect interference AND forbidden squares to the party! 
My guess is that knights would still lose some of their value in endgames, but at least (thanks to the wizardry of forbidden squares 
) there'd occasionally be some weird finishes, like:
Hello @cobra91. Are you making a new game? It looks very interesting but way over my head. Guess I would enjoy trying to play it and I would probably find it very frustrating. I am looking forward to see the outcome.
In reply to post #10: No, post #9 was merely my reply to post #8, which was the OP's reply to post #4 and/or post #6 (and posts #4 + 6 were in reply to the original topic, which you may want to read before replying to this post...). Confused yet? 
@cobra91, in your last diagram are you referring to the line 2.Kf7+ Kxd8 3.Kxg6? Only the first moves appeared in the diagram (since Kf7 would normally be an illegal move).
@Martin0: Yep! I guess that is courtesy of V3, since all moves appear to display correctly in V2.
oh, you're right. I haven't visited v2 in a long time.
I don't think that kind of rules would work if it could be used defensively this way. Here is an example:
This would be a draw since the white king can just walk between f6 and g6 without black having any chance to checkmate.
Wow - now THERE's a position that would drive any current chess engine the Turing-equivalent of completely berserk. 
It's a good observation, though. The only thing I can really say (in defense of the rule) is that if you replace all of Black's queens with as little as two rooks and a knight, then such an endgame should be generally winning for Black (with a few exceptions, of course).
Personally I am a fan of just letting the knights make pieces unable to walk over squares, but still let pieces land on them.
I would not mind much if knights would remove the possibility for pieces to move to an empty square, it is just if an allied piece is standing there already that bugs me. Being able to give ultimate protection by making all captures on that square illegal is what scares me.
Well, it's not quite ultimate protection, although it is awfully close to that. According to post #5 by Ruhubelent, nothing would ever be invulnerable to capture by a knight (knights don't influence enemy knights in any way). A knight-defending-knight setup might threaten the game's viability, but it's impossible to confidently predict this without playtesting. Remember, any remaining pawns can potentially promote to knights, which provides a second way to attack a two-knight fortress.
What if knight is given interrupting power? What I mean is: The squares a knight can move to in a position is blocked, other long range pieces can not pass over this square. Let me give example:
In the position shown above, it is not a check, nor the queen is attacked by the rook. The rook can not move vertically, knight blocks it from doing so. It can move horizontally only, it can capture the knight but not the queen or the king. Nor is the white king under check by the black queen. And the white rook on h5 is not attacked by the black bishop on d1. The knight blocks the bishop as well.
What would Knight's value be if it was granted such a power? Why should we grant it? Knight's movement is a bit different, it shall have such extra power due to its long range impotence. It would be a Samurai then or a Sniper rather than a knight. It would be great defender, this would contribute great joy to the game. It would be an octopus rather than a horse.
UPDATE: Due to questions that arised to understand the proposal, I need to insert explanations here.
If the Knight is replaced by the samurai, then the samurai would probably be the most valuable piece on the board. It would be the best defender and when employed in attack it would paralyse the enemy camp even in endgames, it will disconnect enemy pieces from co-operating.
An endgame with 2 bishops accompanied by king vs a single samurai accompanied by a king would be great fight. Samurai would not get captured but would not win either, would not lose as well.
On one on one fight, only queen could handle him