5 ms·

I'm not a master or anything, but I've always found it interesting that the queen is usually thought of as the most powerful piece while I think it's the knight

by dudul 3y ago

I'm not a master or anything, but I've always found it interesting that the queen is usually thought of as the most powerful piece while I think it's the knight. Yeah the queen can move everywhere, but she's "predictable". The way a knight moves makes it more difficult to defend against IMO.

Agentlien 3y ago
A huge difference is that a queen, like a rook, can attack a whole row and column, making it possible to box in an opponent's king. A knight has limited reach and can never attack a square the same colour as the one it is occupying. Another is that a queen, like a rook, can reach any unblocked square in at most two moves. A Knight can require up to six moves! Add to this the ability to move and attack diagonally like a bishop, but without the restriction of staying on the same colour of squares... The queen is immensely powerful.
filleduchaos 3y ago
Knights are useful but are very much not as difficult to defend against as a queen.
FartyMcFarter 3y ago
Knights are objectively nowhere near as powerful as queens. However they're underrated in blitz chess, where their visually hard to see moves often catch people unaware. Even grandmasters fall for knight forks in blitz games quite often.
sebzim4500 3y ago
Try playing a game where your opponents knights are replaced with queens. I suspect you will change your mind very quickly.
V-2 3y ago
Knights tend to be overrated at lower levels of playing strength, where their irregular moving pattern is indeed challenging for the players, and as a result, Knight moves often get overlooked. However, once a player becomes more proficient, not only the obvious superiority of the Queen, but even of the Bishop (other things being equal, Bishops are thought to be actually somewhat more valuable, especially as a pair) starts becoming apparent.
rlpb 3y ago
Knights are prone to getting "trapped". There are limited places a knight can go, so the opponent only has to maintain pressure on those squares. This is the reason why it's generally a bad idea to put a knight near a corner of the board.

by dudul 3y ago

Agentlien 3y ago

A huge difference is that a queen, like a rook, can attack a whole row and column, making it possible to box in an opponent's king. A knight has limited reach and can never attack a square the same colour as the one it is occupying. Another is that a queen, like a rook, can reach any unblocked square in at most two moves. A Knight can require up to six moves! Add to this the ability to move and attack diagonally like a bishop, but without the restriction of staying on the same colour of squares... The queen is immensely powerful.

filleduchaos 3y ago

Knights are useful but are very much not as difficult to defend against as a queen.

FartyMcFarter 3y ago

Knights are objectively nowhere near as powerful as queens. However they're underrated in blitz chess, where their visually hard to see moves often catch people unaware. Even grandmasters fall for knight forks in blitz games quite often.

sebzim4500 3y ago

Try playing a game where your opponents knights are replaced with queens. I suspect you will change your mind very quickly.

V-2 3y ago

Knights tend to be overrated at lower levels of playing strength, where their irregular moving pattern is indeed challenging for the players, and as a result, Knight moves often get overlooked. However, once a player becomes more proficient, not only the obvious superiority of the Queen, but even of the Bishop (other things being equal, Bishops are thought to be actually somewhat more valuable, especially as a pair) starts becoming apparent.

rlpb 3y ago

Knights are prone to getting "trapped". There are limited places a knight can go, so the opponent only has to maintain pressure on those squares. This is the reason why it's generally a bad idea to put a knight near a corner of the board.