Why?

Knights before bishops?

I *think* it's because they can more quickly control key central squares.

because knights can jump trough pieces and are useful in the fight until the end of the middle game, since bishops are quickly parred using simple pawn chain.. on the endgame the power switches, knights can be easily attacked and cannot control from a safe distance the squares as bishops do.

General rules are given to beginners to help smooth out the learning process, you can skip over complicated examples and ideas and just give an easy to remember tip.  All of these tips of course have exceptions.

But even as these kinds of things go, I think this tip has more exceptions than the others.

The point of it though, is that it's easier to tell where you want your knights.  As white your king's knight will almost always go to f3 (or f6 for black).  If you put your knight on d2 instead of c3 it's not that big a deal, but it will probably go to one or the other (d2 or c3).

Bishops you have a lot more options, and it's better to wait (if you can) to see how your opponent will set up before deciding.  A bishop may want to pin a knight on b5 or g5, it can be developed quietly to the 2nd rank, fianchettoed, etc.  So you're basically putting off that decision until you have more information.  Sure there are tons of exceptions -- but that's the reason behind it.

I had one opponent who kept taking my knights, first thing almost. I always ended up having to trade my knights for his bishops.   

Hey hey!  At the 2200 and up level that may really mean something (although I'm sure a lot of worse players think it means something to them).

But to guys like you and me woodshover, they're really just even 3 point trades.  If you have the bishops then try not to close the center, and stay active, that's all.  It's best to not let things like that (he wants to trade off my knights?!) bother you.

 I was just thinking that maybe he had had too many bad experiences with knight forks in the past. LOL

woodshover:  I was just thinking that maybe he had had too many bad experiences with knight forks in the past. LOL

I have had players tell me such things.  They cannot play well against knights so they want them off of the board. Sometimes at any cost.  Past experiences with forks do concern them. Of course, I've never had an experienced player confess such a concern.

Just listening to some players one can learn many idiosyncrasies that can be used against them. It amazes me how many players make little noises during a game that alert their opponents of their concerns, or surprises, that give away their weaknesses, and sometimes alert their opponents of something that would not have been noticed by their opponents otherwise.  

I had a man tell me, "I exchange pieces every chance I get."  Did I use that information to my advantage?  Need I answer?

 Interesting, but not surprising. I've had a lot of poker playing experience, and people have tells like that, as well.

I've also heard that you develop knights first because they are not long range pieces.  Bishops and rooks can be brought into an attack in one move, but if your knight is still on the back rank it will probably take at least two or three moves to get him into attack position.

Makes sense. Thanks to all. 

woodshover:  Interesting, but not surprising. I've had a lot of poker playing experience, and people have tells like that, as well.

I never have played poker, but I have heard of the famous "poker face" and I attempt to use it for OTB games, unless it is a skittles game.  But even then I tend to be quiet and appear to be a stone most of the time. One exception: When I am confident I have a strong move I like to move very quickly as soon as my opponent moves.  Sometimes it is fun to use psychology to liven up a game.  Of course, sometimes it backfires. 

Bishops move faster than knights. That is the main reason behind moving them first. In the development stage, speed is critical.

Read the question again. ;)

:))

I think he's saying because the knights are slower, you move them first.  Because speed is critical, if you focus on your fast pieces, you'll fall behind when you're left to develop only your slow ones.  A focus on the weakest link sort of thing.

Or maybe he read it wrong, I don't know :)

I know the principles and the rules of thumb for moving the knights before bishop, and that it all depends on the position, etc., but I'm parcel to the knights. I just like to get them into the action as soon as possible.  Yeah, sometimes my partiality weakens my position, but there is always another game.

Because the knights are on very few execptions not needed in or near the center. Bishops don't know their best place until near the end or after the opening. So with this logic, if thhe knights are easier to place correctly, (Which they are.) then you should place them correctly first to save time.

The Knights are meant to clear the path of evil, then the bishops come in to cleans the rest and preach for the Queen is comin.........:)

Knights are better at closed games, for their manouvering, controlling light and dark and jumping pieces. They are preferred in closed games.

Bishops can travel longer distances faster and do different kind of forks to knights. Plus they can pin and skewer, knights can't. They are better at open games.

edit: if you're talking about developing knights before bishops, it's for central control and to protect the b and g pawns.

For me, one of things that makes chess so intriguing is the fact that the different pieces move in different ways.  The knight can fork, but the bishop can pin and skewer.  And when they work together the fun only increases. I find that forking is more fun than pinning or skewering.  I suppose it is the attack element of a fork that attracts me.  In many cases, forks seem to surprise many chess players more than pins or skewers.