A Knight on the rim is dim

I have done this more than enough so I will just agree with what kinghunter75 said and leave it at that!

But isn't the reason that an engine would move a knight to the a or h files simply excactly because it isn't a human? Unless there's something to be tactically gained a few ply down, the knight defends an important square or it's being relocated to an outpost (which often takes it through strange routes, I just relocated a knight in a game to g3 via h5).

After all human coaches will teach you to play like a human.. not like Houdini. There's no arguing that Houdini is stronger than any human, but consequently, no human can play like Houdini.

This was invented by General Rule who fought with his wife during the Civil War. Actually there are a number of openings where the "book," MCO--if I told you what MCO really stands for I might get kicked off this website--tells us to move the knight to a3. 

Waffle - That was a great little lesson. Thanks for sharing that.

But dr Frank I was not talking about the opening, much less about the MCO which is an old obsolete book. I was talking about first moves suggested by Houdini 3 in the middle-game.

Oh nevermind, you people just refuse to understand....... Go watch "the backyard professor" on youtube and leave me alone...

His point that "a knight is not always dim" is correct.

But he is grossly wrong if he thinks that grandmasters, chess coaches, etc. believe the opposite.

He is also grossly wrong if he believes that knights, more often than not, should go to the rim. But he hasn't clearly claimed that.

Houdini 3 only suggest placing a knight on the rim when it:

Are going somewhere else! Often, they are moving to outposts, for example f4 (which controls the centre). Example:

2: Where it defends an important square. I got one from my own games:

3: Wins material. However, it takes time, and the opponents compensation should be considered.

So, in GENERAL knights should be placed near or in the centre But if there are CONCRETE reasons to place them on the rim, it's fine.

You are right, I don't know how to use Houdini, my computer does.

God, these people talk about chess like it's a religion or something! That's why yall rating is the same for decades!

My rating is 1300-1500, but FYI, I improved 600 points in 6 months. (at chesscube.com, from 1200 to 1800) Ok? Remember my avatar and nickname very well and check it again in a few months.

chesscube.com's rating are notoriously inflated. The chess.com rating is much closer of the "real" (ie FIDE, OTB-based) rating.

I know, but how much progress I made is what matters.

Well, on doublechesscube where the ratings are exactly twice the chesscube ratings, your progress is twice as big.

Do you see a problem ?

If not, excuse me, I have to become a GM in one month to hundredtimeschesscube.

Well your claim would be right IF chesscube had double the true rating (which would still be 300 in 6 months). But chesscube's rating is higher not for this reason, but because it's 300-400 points higher, that's all. You won't see any 4000 there. So my progress was still good.

The reason people say "A knight on the rim is dim" (or grim as I prefer to say) has nothing to do with "how many lines are on the rim" vs how many are in the center as the OP mentioned earlier. A knight shouldn't linger on the edge of the board because it controls fewer squares there.

To illustrate the concept: Put a knight on d4. Momentarily disregarding other pieces, that knight has EIGHT squares to which it can jump. Now put the knight on h5. This knight can only jump to FOUR squares. If you put the knight on a1, it only controls TWO squares. So by putting the knight on the rim, you temporarily and voluntarily choose to control fewer squares with that piece. This can turn out well if those squares are particularly important (eg if you need them for a kingside attack) or if you're just rerouting the knight.

But when I play opponents of the OP's approximate caliber in blitz tournaments here, they frequently play moves like Nh6 for no reason. That's why we are initially taught that a Knight on the rim is dim.

Alxmaster, this "rule" is meant for beginners. Players who may not recognize certain tactical adavantages. Telling them to develop their knights to the center will let them get the most out of their knight. Major blunders are what wins and loses games at the beginner level; therefore, a tactical or positional adavantage will not have the same effect on the game as it would if two grandmasters are playing. What you fail to understand is that that "rule" makes chess a little easier to understand for someone who has never played. With that being said, you have a 1479 rating here and a 1800 rating on chesscube( you start at 1500 on that site so 1800 is not that good), stop trying to give advice... it shows your ignorance.

True BMeck but what advice have I given?

Tarrasch famously once said to "always put the rook behind the [passed] pawn... Except when it is incorrect to do so."

A knight on the rim is dim, except when it is not.

Is there any known mnemonic phrases/adage for a knight in the corner.

The basis for the rule is simply the amount of squares that are directly influenced by the knight.  A knight on say e5 directly impacts 8 squares, whereas a knight on say a3 only controls 4 squares.  A well placed knight in the center could very well control a game.

That said, sometimes there are good tactical reasons to send a knight away from the center.  But, these times require a good tactical or positional reason.  There is, GENERALLY, more benefit for developing towards the center. A good chess engine plays chess better than any human could hope to, but there is some value to human intuition (and limits to AI).  Any general rule has an exception, but that does not undermine the value of the rule.

Because we're mature adults or mature teenagers?