Origins of how the Knight moves

 We are all very, very, clever for that Tyler603.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif#/media/File:Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif

I actually discovered the answer to the origin of how the knight moves on my own.

If you are interested in the answer, let me know and I will show you why the knight moves the way it does.

According to the Wikipedia page on the Knight, its move was unchanged since Chaturanga originated in ancient India. However, I had thought I had seen references, in older books on Chess, to the Knight's move that described it as something similar to the move of the Horse in Chinese Chess: either an orthogonal move followed by a diagonal move, or a diagonal move followed by an orthogonal move, I'm not sure which one, but whichever one it was, without the power to jump over an intervening piece.

So my question would be if the Knight's move actually was, over the history of Chaturanga, Shatranj, and modern Chess, limited in some times and places in that way.

The reason why the knight moves in an "L" shape, is because those are the only squares that can't be hit with a bishop and rook (or queen).

Put a bishop in the center of the board and mark all the squares it hits. It will be two long diagonals. Then put a rook in the center and mark the squares it hits. It will be a long vertical and a long horizontal.

8 squares will be missed. Those are the knight moves.

Here's the diagram of the knight hitting the squares that the bishop and rook miss.

Yeah, it's just basic geometry.

A knight can move to any of the squares closest to it that aren't on the same rank, file, or diagonal.

It's like asking "how did they come up with a square?"

I mean... dude, it's a square. Literally anyone could have thought of it, and probably most people did. There's no origin story for something so simple.

Yep. It makes perfect sense.

If you were the person inventing Chess, you'd probably notice the squares that aren't hit by the diagonal, horizontal and vertical. So you create a piece that does. And since it jumps to the squares you call it a horse.

The strange part is why it's called a knight. The knight is not a horse. It's the soldier / warrior who rides one.

Well, usually horses aren't in a battle on their own.

It might help to see this demonstration on how horses move.

It took a while to find a sensible explanation for the original movement among many articles on consequent historical interpretations and speculations. Thank you

For prize

Whether the Knight covering the squares other pieces miss depends on what the original movement of the elephant was (which is disputed I believe).

If an elephant moved like in the chess.com version, if you add Rook+Elephant+King, the Knight covers the missing spaces.