What if the Knight couldn't hop over peices

To explain what I mean :

I think you need a pawn on g2 in the second diagram. The knight can still make it to g3 via g1-g2-g3. 

To answer your question though, I think it would make the knight all but worthless if it couldn't move over other pieces. 

Interesting, but maybe I would not call it worth less, maybe one point

Maybe, but consider the situations where a knight is at it's most powerful

1) on an outpost with a backward pawn:

2) Forks:

3) Smother mate: 

None of those positions would be valuable for white if the knight was not able to jump over other pieces. In fact, the last two would not even be reachable by white without the ability to jump. 

The Knight in Xiangqi (Chinese Chess) cannot jump over an orthogonally adjacent piece, but can jump over a diagonally adjacent piece. Because the Knight is assumed to move one square orthogonally followed by one square diagonally.

ok yeah I kinda agree with you now @survifit

Nothing is preventing you from starting the website chesswheretheknightcanthopoverpieces.com.  Pretty sure the URL is available.  These "What if [different rules]" questions reflect a tenuous grasp of chess reality.  What if I could poop rolls of gold-leafed $100 bills? 

good one....you crack me up....

depends how you see the knight move. instead of looking at it as the 'little L' why not (using a knight from b1 to c3 as an example) up one left one up one. (it's hard to describe but i hope you understand)

or a half diagonal.

read more "What Ifs" here : https://www.chess.com/blog/balashukla0761/the-what-if-collection

interesting (btw way it is up one RIGHT one up one to make it go from b1 to c3, you are saying b1 to a3?, hope you understand)

it would be way too hard to develop the knight

thanks for pointing out my error.

your welcome