in terms of pure attacking power and utility, the kings between a pawn and a minor piece in the early game. It gets outgunned by the minor pieces in every way, plus the heavy pieces are usually still on, so the king is basically just a versatile pawn. So material point of 2 in the opening and middle game is reasonable.
In the endgame the king becomes a lot more valuable. Even as the piece to protect, at every high level end game, the king is always important to activate, and whoever does it better generally has an advantage. It's probably worth close to a rook in the endgame, so something like 4-6.
Also the knight's total is 59 and king's 49.
The knight neither attacks "far more" or "far further" so I think you didn't actually do the exercise.
what? the king can move to 24 squares and the knight can move to 35 and moving further has nothing to do with the amount of squares something attacks
Also to everyone, dont forget that when paired with its ability to jump over pieces (can't get blocked) and complex attack movement (everything else moves in the two axis directly or diagonal, knight doesnt.) that makes it incredible for forking attacks
Yup, i think people take this ability of knights for granted. Knights can immediately fight for the center at the start. Replacing knights with kings would just mean giving the side with the knight complete domination of the center since a king would be too slow to get behind and support it's pawns. Knights just have more mobility