why the knight

Of all the pieces i chess i find the knight the most problematic and the most powerful. They're like Jordan was for the bulls. They make every other piece more powerful. what are your thoughts?

Compared to bishops, rooks, and queens the movement of the knight is short and stubby. I say remove them from the game and it would be better off.

haha nooooo, all the best combinations involve knights.  Usually they're the ones thowing themselves into the battle to initiate said combinations. 

I think it depends on the game, Most times I will sac a knight for an opposing bishop but it is all conditional.

Plus, knights give you smothered mate!!!! How can you not love that!!!!

I think you know you're a player when you promote to a Knight. Not something I've ever done, sadly...

i would only sacrifice a knight for a queen, rook, or of course the game. i think the knight is more battle worthy than the bishop

They are both powerful, but the Bishop is slightly better than the Knight; one of the reasons being that a Bishop can trade for a Knight more easily than a Knight can trade for a Bishop.

A knight, however, is still a very important piece.

When I started playing I found the knight not very useful, now I see that there quite useful although I still find myself sacraficing my kniht for an opponents bishop.

Knights can occupy all squares, makes it nice for the end game

The Knight is also kinda the symbol for chess.  Used to be a show on television called  "Paladin"  Paladin was a gun for hire in the old american west. on his gun holster was a knight chess piece.  the song of the show was :  "A knight without armor in a savage land, His fast gun for hire heeds the calling wind,Paladin, Paladin, oh where do you roam..... well the question just caused me to remember that...

The knight is an extraodinary chess piece. It can do things that no other pieces can do, it's got the best combinations,it can acces every square of the board unlike bishops and it's a symbol for chess.

KIESH2

I used to find knites very troublesome as well when I was a begginer but as time brewed on and my play got better I played more and more endgames (you tend to pull your punches the more you learn) I noticed how the knites could be very bad pieces in the endgame... and how they were useless in a variety of other situations so now I prefer bishops.

Compared to all the other pieces on the chess board, the knight is definitely the most exciting. As said above, a knight makes a lot of effective combinations possible. When compared to the bishop though, I would say that overall the bishop is worth a bit more. In the middle and end games, the bishop is more valuable because there is more free space and the board is more open. But close-quarters, like the opening, the knight is much more maneuverable because of its capability to jump over pieces. The bottom line is that without the knight chess just wouldn't be chess.

Jordan wasn't problematic

I hate knights that my opponents have and try and capture them.  They have the ability to check the king and also place pressure on the queen at the same time.  I love to use mine to attack in the opening especially when the board is so crowded with pieces.  I would rather have a bishop in the end game, especially if you have two.  They have better mobility.

knights are just harder for average players to plan for in a game but masters plan as well for knights as every piece

ref my earlier post here, i think song went:   "a soldier of fortune is a man called Paladin, a knight without armor in a savage land, his fast gun for hire heeds the calling wind, Paladin oh Paladin, oh where do you roam......

here is a bishop fork

Most of the pieces in Chess are runners. King and Pawn are steppers. Knights are jumpers. Divercoty mkes the game exciting.