mayebe youre a bad "rider" .... ah, ah, know what i mean???:D
Dude i could write you a million reasons why your reasoning is absurd. Give me 2 knights, 6 pawns a rook and a queen and i will win your 6p, 2B, 1Q, 1R easy, just because you wont understand what to do:) Even your material is slighty stronger...
If you want one of the million reasons - knights can go back, pawns cant. And knight value is from 3 to 2.6 depending on a master who analizes. Theres a lot of books about it... Also for my knights ppl sacrifice rooks...:)
Um... that's NOT what I meant. Knight can go backwards, sure, but the fact that pawns can eventually turn into queens compensates for their weakness.
By the way, you wouldn't take a heavily defended knight with a rook, nor would you take a heavily defended pawn, because they rarely pose a threat to me should my opponent possess one.
However, you sometimes need to sacrifice your rook for a heavily protected bishop, because it might be a big tactical or positional threat, or assisting in a checkmate. That, I can comprehend.
Now, I know the prominency of the knight can be taken advantage of only in certain conditions, such as a closed game. I'm just used to playing with bishops.
All I did was talk about how the knight how the knight can be worse than a bishop or the same as a pawn. I meant no insult to any of the players on this site. I just wanted your opinion on the matter, not to make a big fuss over it.
wel saying a knight is like a pawn in any nature is just false ou cant compare the two at all
Bishops are only good in the open games, in closed games bad bishops don't do much more than pawns so it's quite equal
Well, two pawns can trap a knight in a corner, and three on the side. I think that was how the value of the pieces are determined. Therefore (I rephrase), a knight might have the value of two or three pawns.
You may call me insane and such, but I think there is a correlation between the value of the pieces and the number of pawns required to trap that piece. I will make a seperate forum on the matter.
Vulpus, you did not ask for opinions. You declared that knights are overvalued, as if that is common knowledge. If you can't find the power in a good knight, it is your loss.
For instance, consider the popular Nimzo-Indian defense, a defense used at all rating levels. Why would black give up one of his bishops for a supposedly measly knight?
For the record, when sacrificing, I usually victimise bishops :-))
"Knights are too undervalued"...
Just how undervalued do you think would be appropriate?
THE KNIGHT IS THE MOST IMPOTANT PIECE IN MID GAME STATAGY FOLOWED THE BY THE BISHOP
No, the king is.
Lenny would disagree.
Guys cmon, the most important piece in midgame strategy is the pawns..
So, he's suggesting we should buy a lot of Knights and hold them until the market goes to its natural equilibrium point?
When do we cash in?
The middle game revolves around pawns, but the knight is by far the tickiest piece to look out for
That's what Viagra is for
CAPS LOCK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT KEY ON THE KEYBOARD
It's all very well to debate the value of this or that and each chess piece has long been given a mathematical value for comparison. But once the game has commenced and you have a complex position this changes drastically. Any sacrifice is good if it works. Sacrifice your queen if it leads to a winning position. Sometimes manipulating the opponent's most effective piece so that it is sidelined or boxed in, making it ineffective -- is as good as winning it. Pawns and even pieces of your opponent can sometimes be manipulated into a position that cramps his position. A sacrifice might be worthwhile to achieve this. Every game is different and the value of a knight, or any piece really depends on its position. Haven't you often looked at the board and wished a piece of yours could vanish because it cramps your intended strategy?
The actual title of the topic should rather be "when the OP is high on something evil".
Excuse me, but your reasoning is totally ridiculous.
Those reasons are perfectly valid.
I just don't find knights as good as people claim it to be. I'm a bishop person, because open positions occur much more frequently than closed positions. In fact, I think knights are poor endgame pieces, as bishops dominate the open board with their long range. In addition, a bishop alone can trap a knight.
I find a bishop to be a positional piece, whilst a knight is a tactical piece. Considering those descriptions, I would almost always select bishops over knights in the opening and the endgame, because the bishop's long range easily contributes to kingside attacks, pawn massacres, and deadly pins and skewers.
Replace the bishop with a knight, and your middlegame and endgame play would be significantly more difficult (in most situations).
I just want people to acknowledge my reasons why I see knights as being on par in value with pawns.
I hope to meet you in some tournaments soon