The secret about Knight

thats a lie, they are the same. knights are good and you cant replace their movements with a queens movements.Bishops control diagnols and hat is good. there different but neither is better than the other!

and that's why you suck

Seriously though, you will have to lose that idea at some point in your improvement in chess.  Part of the power of a piece is your ability to move it and to trade it.  If you will never trade your bishops for knights, then your knights will be significantly more powerful than your bishops, because your bishops will be more limited in movement, and will never be allowed to capture any knights in a trade.  You are in essence playing every game with disabled bishops, and will have to discard any plans that might involve such a trade. 

I was going to say basically what loomis said, about knights not jumping.  If you treat pieces as a point in the centre of their squares, then the knight doesnt ever encounter any resistance as it moves between a and b like other pieces.  I believe any reference to a horse is a dead end, as I think this was just a staunton thing, and a knight really is not required to have anything whatsoever to do with horses.  Also, given that the knight isnt doing anything special like jumping, really the knight's movement is simply fills in the gaps left by the other pieces. 

your coach is wrong, or you misunderstood. because that is a lie. and what sssttteeevvveeennn said.

your making alot of enemys defending a lie.

rich wrote:

My chess coach said never trade Bishops for Knights, I listen to him. And I think that too that Bishops are better.

Either you didn't hear your coach properly or your coach isn't very good. Whether or not to trade bishops for knights really depends on the nuances of the position. In other words, sometimes it is better to trade off your bishop for your opponent's knight (like in closed positions).

While a bishop pair is better than two knights or one of each in the endgame, it's not good to go out of your way to get them.

they are worth the same and have the same strength, they are just different.

People like Rich, are why the knight is more 'dreadful' than the queen.  I've always thought as knights as assassins.  They move inbetween other pieces to find their kill.  If you find it easier to come to grips with their move by refering to it as a jump then by all means. 

Also, I think Rich should study some games of Tal.  To think ANYTHING that stops you from making a "sacrifice" for an advantage is incorrect use of your brain.  I have used pawns, bishops, knights, rooks, and queens to batter open an opponents defenses and find the mate. (Still trying to find a way to do this with my king ;) )

I also find the strength of the piece is not always accurately seen with it still on the board, but rather what it accomplished before it left.

People dont always teach stuff because it is the truth.  Sometimes things are taught because it is thought best that you believe it to be true.  For example, if you believe bishops are better than knights, you arent going to be randomly trading off your bishops for knights early in the game, which is usually bad. 

It's not just chess where people will be teaching you lies and half-truths.  It is done all the time in school (without even going near real life and what politicians tell you).  You will be taught one thing, and then it will later be refined, or completely replaced by something else, more complicated, usually closer to how it really is.  I think chemistry was "re-written" 3 times before i'd finished A-levels.  Then it turns out A-level chemistry is still "wrong" in some ways.  I'm sure in physics, they tell you that light is a wave, and that electrons are particles, but then this goes awry when you find out about things like the photoelectric effect, and Young's double slit experiment respectively.

rich wrote: My chess coach said never trade Bishops for Knights

rich> a Bishop in the middle of a chess board it covers 14 squares

Such a bishop controls 13 squares. It doesn't control the square it stands on.

rich> a Knight only covers 8 squares.

Often an opponent has to avoid not only the squares a knight directly controls, but also the squares a knight can attack in one move (33). And of course, a knight can potentially control any of the 64 squares on the board while a bishop can only potentially control 32.

lol, now i have the image of a knight, silenced pistol in hand, doing a commando roll across the board, and backing up against the back of my lead pawn, and peering round the corner for its mark, then at an appropriate moment, when the guards are distracted by intruding peasants and bewildered clergymen, leaping round the corner, onto the outpost, and *bang bang*, job done! "Better watch out, cos I'm the assasssiiiiiiin"

not to mention knight forks, which are horribble because they are hard to capture

"If you find it easier to come to grips with their move by refering to it as a jump then by all means."

It is mathematically and intuitively a jump, the knight has no business on any square's except its start and end square.  If it's not a jump it's a teleport!

Think of it like the experiments that showed their was space between atoms.  Firing particles through a sheet of gold.  (can't remember the exact experiment sorry)  The particles didn't magically hit the sheet and teleport to the otherside, nor did they get close to the sheet and jump to the side and scurry around the thing before continueing on its initial path.  They moved inbetween the atoms.

I'm not saying the knight doesn't jump... I'm just saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Well it could be a jump, or a fixed stride, or someone with a specific type of ocd.  Even if it's a jump, it doesnt have to be jumping over anything but space.  Surely then all pieces could be jumping since they always move integer numbers of squares.  Also, all pieces only exist on their start and finish squares.  Only the pawn is any different if it moves twice, where it can be captured en passant.  Still, surely 2 consecutive 'jumps'.  Maybe for the king going through check, he simply doesnt want to take the risk of being knocked out the air.  This is clearly all nonsense, and it makes absolutely no sense to think of jumping unless you are thinking of jumping over something other than simply empty space. 

Actually that experiment was for something else.  It showed that Thomson's plum-pudding model of atomic structure was incorrect as some electrons were deflected right back in the opposite direction, which wouldn't be possible had they simply bounced off the 'atom' (thought of as a lump of protons with electrons stuck in it, as in 'plum-pudding') and was likened to firing a cannonball at a big sheet of paper, and seeing it bounce right back at you.  It demonstrated, (well ish.  Technically the Rutherford model that came from this experiment is a bit simple, but it got the important nucleus and separate electrons bit right) what we now know of as atomic structure with a central positive nucleus - which could accelerate some electrons passing close to it, sending them back in the direction they came from - and the atom's electrons away from the nucleus.  So rather than demonstrating space between atoms, it showed space within atoms.  It wasnt the electrons going through that showed anything though, as they would go through the gaps 'between atoms' anyway.  Also technically you dont need any gaps at all for particles to go through a barrier, although, you could tell from the numbers that succeeded whether there were gaps. 

A knight is a 'root 5 leaper'.  It moves a distance the square root of 5 squares between other pieces.  The physical pieces we use are just representations of the centre of action of a piece.

cheers for that steve.  I knew I was hashing up my write up (bit hung over) but I felt the analogy of moving through something kinda worked.  Physics, much like chess is something I love but have never really studied.  Its always nice to be given little gems of knowledge along the way though.

As a side, I love the imagery of a horsey jumping over a castle to eat your queen.  HA

Could it not equally well be a root 5 slider?  Unlike say a root 2 leaper, which would have to leap. 

I am cautious of the knight because of the forking possibilities.  I have had a knight destroy my game because of this ability.  I like to remove my opponent's knights from the board for this very reason.  Also for the same reason I enjoy using my knights to the destruction of my opponent's pieces.  One factor that the knight has that other pieces do not enjoy is that when attacking a piece is that it lands on the piece being attacked, so while if it is attacking a king, normally you would have these options. 

1. Move the king.

2. Capture the knight.

3. Interpose a piece.

With a knight you are unable to interpose a piece. 

I would also agree with previous comments that in the early game the ability of the knight to move about is not as easily restricted as other pieces.  I also would say that generally I prefer bishops in the end game where moving across distances isn't hampered by other pieces as often.  This is assuming both bishops are still available.  Sometimes because of it's forking abilities, it is nice if you are unable to have both bishops, a knight and a bishop will serve you well.  My favorite fork is the King and Queen.  This is almost as enjoyable as mate.

Also, its lesser point value helps it become more deadly because people are not as cautious using it, but that's mostly at lower levels...