A knight may move exactly 1+ square root of 2 squares in any direction that lands it exactly in the center of another square.
Try not to think about that next time you play.
Simpler to say square root of 5 units in any direction that lands in a square's center. In your 1 + rad 2, couldn't the knight diagonal back so that it was next to its original position? Knights surely exhibit some irrational behavior.
I actually don't envision the knight move as an "L" shape. I see it as one square orthogonally, plus one square diagonally.
This is how the horse moves in Chinese chess: it cannot jump over pieces. For example, in this position the white horse attacks the black horse, but the black horse doesn't attack the white horse. (Pretend the pawn is actually a soldier, and that the dimensions of the board are correct.)
I think it's just geometric.
The knight can move to any square closest to itself that a queen cannot move to from the same square. I'm sure the movement rules for pieces were made first as this is the essence of the game. The names and shapes for the figures are secondary and unimportant to game play.
I don't think chess was made to teach geometry personally, The reason I think it has geometric overtures, is simply coincidental, perhaps the person knew about geometry and used it in some degree however (for simple easy to understand concepts that could get his points across to his students).
I believe whoever made it up was a wise teacher that was tired of using rocks and sticks as military units, and a sand box as the field of battle, to show his students or officers, demostrations of his thoughts, perhaps as training on tactics and strategy. Lol, of course I could be totally wrong.
What do l shapes and diagonals have to do with geometry? I mean it was just an unused geometric pattern. e.g. we have a piece that moves orthogonally, diagonally. We have two that do both together. We have pieces that move 1 forward at a time... anything we're missing? Oh, a knight's movement.
Chess at beginner level teaches calculation and awareness of chess pieces. I think if you worked with people you could show them the importance of space, force, and mobility. I think these barely if at all translate to lessons in real world tactics and strategy.
I actually don't envision the knight move as an "L" shape. I see it as one square orthogonally, plus one square diagonally.
This is how the horse moves in Chinese chess: it cannot jump over pieces. For example, in this position the white horse attacks the black horse, but the black horse doesn't attack the white horse. (Pretend the pawn is actually a soldier, and that the dimensions of the board are correct.)
This is the first time someone's explained it to me that it made sense!
"can't jump over pieces" ?? What the hell? The black knight simply moves diagonally then orthogonally and captures the white knight without jumping over anything.
But now I see. So the rule is 1st orthogonally and 2nd diagonally and in this order only.
LongIslandMark has the right idea.
When you look at a knight in a position, see the squares it can reach, not the method by which it can reach them. Putting this in terms of training software, the proper way to show how pieces move is to highlight all of their possible destination squares, not to show an arrow from destination to origin.
What's the difference? When I see a position, I see all the squares that a knight can move to. I do not even think of how the knight moves. Thinking of how the knight moves is analogous to a beginning reader, who has to look at every letter before he can read a word; thinking of all the possible knight moves (arrows from origin to destination) is like a barely skilled reader who can read one word at a time; seeing only the destination squares as akin to the beginning speed reader, who is learning to read many word chunks at a time.
The visualization lesson videos (by the name of "Total Board Awareness" parts 1 and 2, I believe) by IM Rensch would go a long way towards helping to develop this ability.
Perhaps it was invented by a mathematician genius, that also was an officer in the military WM ? It is possible. I also did not mean to imply that geometry was not in chess, I just don't personally believe it was invented to teach it, however I could be wrong, since no one knows who actually invented it, nor exactly when it was invented.
I think we should recognize:
1) Chess was developed with the idea of imitating war/battle in mind. This was not a game of "geometry" with "shapes and names" done after the fact.
2) Play necessarily needed structured grounds. (ie. squares and ordered movement)
Acknowledging that, I simply suggest the structured movement possibilities ran out after Pawn (just small steps forward), Bishop (just diagonals), Rook (just straight lines), Queen (the strong piece with both).
The only fairly simply, non-dominant movement option left was the Knight. It also throws in interesting play and variability that without such, chess would be boring and poor game.
I don't think it was created to do anything but pass time. Simulate a battle? I don't think so. These are romantic ideas we dream up after the fact.
About the knight's movement being the only different type of movement left... yes, that's what I said. e.g. make a 5x5 board and place a knight in the middle. It simply covers all the squares the other pieces would not influence.
I don't think it was created to do anything but pass time. Simulate a battle? I don't think so. These are romantic ideas we dream up after the fact.
About the knight's movement being the only different type of movement left... yes, that's what I said. e.g. make a 5x5 board and place a knight in the middle. It simply covers all the squares the other pieces would not influence.
Well, I actually meant what I wrote up two comments. I think it was created and meant to "imitate" not "simulate", war or battle.
I agree with LongIslandMark.
Also, addressing the pawn attack question... it almost had to be. Can you imagine a game of chess where pawns killed forward?
Also, I'd guess the double pawn move came about to speed up game play.
And "en passant" because originally the pawn couldn't move twice.
I wasn't aware that there was any real demand for a system to help remember how the knight moves. Isn't it already simple enough?
Lol... but everyone knows that for beginners, like we once were, the knight has the hardest move to remember.
The traditional way to remember how the knight moves, is the L shape:
A more useful way to think of it would be:
YES the knight was the hardest piece to learn!!!!
"Along with the fact that when a knight moves, it always lands on a different color square."
I wish someone had told me THAT sooner! I only learned this just recently.
A knight may move exactly 1+ square root of 2 squares in any direction that lands it exactly in the center of another square.
Try not to think about that next time you play.
Well that's not true now is it.
Yes, it is true, as long as you include my entire sentence.
I wasn't aware that there was any real demand for a system to help remember how the knight moves. Isn't it already simple enough?
No kidding.
This is an amazingly active community for a topic like this to generate so many replies.