Why is the knight only worth three pawns?

I've played so many games where the only thing holding my opponent's entire position together was a defensive knight. I sometimes think in some scenarios it can be worth as much as a queen. It's equally devastating in attack, too.

Obviously, that 3-point evaluation is just a rule of thumb. There are plenty of positions where the knight is worth quite a bit more than three pawns, particularly when it is participating in an attack on the king. But in the endgame, the knight is very clumsy trying to defend against a bunch of advancing passed pawns. And a lone knight struggles and often fails to hold the draw against three enemy pawns

Statistics.

The probability of open positions occurring that favor a bishop over a knight is far higher, which is why a knight is worth 3 points and a bishop 3.5, according to Bobby Fisher.

Well, in Fischer’s book (Bobby Fischer  Teaches Chess), he places the Bishop’s value at 3.25. I believe I witnessed Kasparov putting this a few hundredths lower in the WIRED video featuring him answering questions.

That WIRED video was quite funny. One of the questions was from a GM but I don't think Garry realised.

Three pawns can attack six squares maximum (could be 4)
A knight can attack eight squares maximum (could be 2)

When I was a kid I wrote down the number of squares a knight and bishop could move to in a GM game. Then I thought oh but some of them are silly moves. Got some way into a re-write and thought, nah somebody else did this to get 3 pawns for each and went with trust.

The world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that think. WIRED videos are generally on the comedy domain, thus requiring thinking. Electrical engineering is dangerous, as it requires wires, and henceforth thinking.

In all seriousness, it genuinely was particularly whimsical when some questioner inquired about a knight movement or something by utilising ‘jargon’ such as horsey. For all we may know, the questioner could be a supergrandmaster.

Because the knight is only more valuable in endgame positions with fewer porns to zap it up in other positions it’s a useless ting so the average is 3

Yeah, I got that wrong, Fisher said the bishop is worth 3.25 points.

Also lol at the guy who asked why we castle and restrict the king's movement, but Gary didn't get it.🤣

I use a rule of thumb slightly more refined than the "3 pawns" one.

To me, a knight is worth as many pawns as its number of moves. So a knight on its starting position is worth 3 pawns, as we all know, a knight on the corner is really bad and worth only 2 pawns, while a knight on f3 is worth 8 pawns.

I'd say the lower the rating of the players, the more the knight is worth.

Must be worth a fortune when you’re playing then

Ouch.😂 

Come on, be nice.

Edit: Wait a second, you're FIDE 3000 rated?🤨

Good one.

Fun Morphy game with some really stinking knights:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1224566

@knightscape007

How are you FIDE 3000 rated?

I'm kinda blown away right now.😲

These are Stockfish's material value evaluation(

1. Middle game

2. This is material value in endgame

https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/

Note. Those value doesnt involve other bonus/ penalities ( e.g passed pawn bonus/ double pawn penality)

As you can see, the value of pawn become almost double from middle game to endgame.

The knight is worth more than 3 pawns.  The 3 pawn Idea is for beginners who are just starting to learn.

Even in  the opening position a knight is worth more than 3 pawns---but NOT 4 pawns,