Actually, there is a whole page of "someones" if you would care to search the archived forums for "favorite chess piece". Not saying it's not an interesting topic worthy of discussion, just saying it's been asked and answered.
Favourite chess piece and why?
Sort:
The best piece on the board in the given situation! For example, in the Classical King's Indian, Black's Light Squared Bishop, just waiting for that moment to sacrifice itself. In the Modern Defense, often Black's Dark-Squared Bishop.
In other words, those that favor a certain piece, most common being Knights over Bishops or Bishops over Knights, regardless of the situation, are imbeciles! Anybody that trades a Bishop for a Knight because they don't like Bishops doesn't deserve to ever be higher than 1400.
The King. You cannot win without him.
Thats true
Pawns are the soul of chess. Long term strategy revolves around pawns.
It would be the bishop.
It's one of my main attacking pieces in chess.
The knigt,often forks over one of the enemys...
Mine are queen and knight. Queen because of its strenght, and knight because of his moving, forking abilities, and smothered checkmate.
The piece which delivers checkmate.
The piece that delivers mate.
My second favorite piece is the one that I sacrifice to deliver mate!
Regarding preferring Knights over Bishops, take a look at the games of the old masters. Quite often, they would trade off their opponent's Knight for their Bishop as soon as possible. Today, we may view that as a backwards strategy, but these players were +2300 strength by today's standards.
I second king, but only in pawn and king endgames. It's just fun to see the weakest, most vulnerable piece turn into an absoulute monster.
I like the bishop because two bishops together has a pleasing visual aesthetic. There is also a tactile roundness to a bishop.
Estragon wrote:
Well, this one time at chess camp . . .
At least it's smaller than a flute. 
Reuben Fine wrote perhaps the worst book on chess in history, The Psychology of Chess. As a world class player (perhaps America's best player before Fischer) and psychoanalyst, he offered a unique perspective on the game.
He argued for a Freudian explanation of chess and the fondness for the B, and King and pawns especially were phallic homo-erotic preferences. He saw the entire game as an exercise in Oedipal desires to kill the father and marry the mother.
My favo(u)rite chess piece is the FRATZ..... NO ONE ELSE HAS ONE !
SmyslovFan wrote:
Reuben Fine wrote perhaps the worst book on chess in history, The Psychology of Chess. As a world class player (perhaps America's best player before Fischer) and psychoanalyst, he offered a unique perspective on the game.
He argued for a Freudian explanation of chess and the fondness for the B, and King and pawns especially were phallic homo-erotic preferences. He saw the entire game as an exercise in Oedipal desires to kill the father and marry the mother.
Ah, good ol' Freudian psychology, making innuendo out of literally everything. And if that was so why is the King checkmated and not the Queen?
SmyslovFan wrote:
Reuben Fine wrote perhaps the worst book on chess in history, The Psychology of Chess. As a world class player (perhaps America's best player before Fischer) and psychoanalyst, he offered a unique perspective on the game.
I forget who said it, but someone observed that when Fine gave up chess to concentrate on psychoanalysis that it was "a great loss for chess, at best a draw for psychoanalysis".
knight and queen.
Gil-Gandel wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Reuben Fine wrote perhaps the worst book on chess in history, The Psychology of Chess. As a world class player (perhaps America's best player before Fischer) and psychoanalyst, he offered a unique perspective on the game.
I forget who said it, but someone observed that when Fine gave up chess to concentrate on psychoanalysis that it was "a great loss for chess, at best a draw for psychoanalysis".
That made me laugh :)
Well,someone had to ask!