user1811: We've all heard about the concepts of 'good' bishop and 'bad' bishop.
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/ppp2ppp/2np4/2b1p3/2B1P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 5"]

In the position above, the white knight at f3 does not have access to either of the centre squares d4 or e5. Can this knight be considered a 'bad' knight? Is it best to have developed it to f3 or would e2 be a better square for this knight?

user17: The "goodness" or badness" of a knight is measured by how many squares it can reach, whether or not the opposition controls it. If you somehow put Black's queen on d4, the knight on f3 can capture it.
The knight on f3 is "good." It can move its theoretical maximum of eight squares. A knight on one of the corner squares, h1, is "bad." It can move only two squares. A knight on e2 would have only six theoretical moves, not as good as being on f3, unless there were some other, strategic reason (e.g., supporting a knight under attack on c3.

user3059: Well, generally a knight on the 
1st or 2nd rank is defensive
3rd rank or 4th rank is theoretically "normal", and can be used defensively & aggresively.
5th rank is considered superior to a bishop
6th rank is the most devastating and might force your opponent to sacrifice an exchange to get rid of it.
7th rank is not as good as those on the 6th
8th rank basically needs to get out of the rank :D

user291: I'll answer this in three parts: the literal question, the concept of badly-placed pieces, and the particular example you give.

Bishops are the only piece for which the nomenclature "good" and "bad" is idiomatic. That is because the set of squares a bishop can theoretically travel to is inherent to it; a dark-squared bishop can never ever go to a light square, so if the position is such that you'd like to have a bishop on light squares, you're out of luck and your bishop is "bad". On the other hand, if you have a badly-placed knight (or queen, or rook), there's almost never something preventing you from theoretically eventually repositioning it on a good square. So people generally don't use the term "bad knights".
(People sometimes speak of endgames with a "good knight versus a bad bishop", but this is more a figure of speech meant to call attention to the fact that the bishop is bad and the knight cannot be.)
Pieces can of course be badly placed, but except in the case of a bishop of the wrong color, they are just referred to as badly-placed pieces. In fact an excellent strategical rule of thumb is to always consider improving the position of your worst-placed piece.
However, in the position you present, the knight is doing just fine on f3. It supports an eventual d4 (probably with the support of a pawn on c3), which if played at the right time could be very powerful, opening up the center. It puts pressure on Black's pawn on e5, dissuading him from playing the analogous move ...d5. And in some circumstances it could jump to g5, putting pressure on f7 or h7 (especially after Black has castled).


1811: <p>We've all heard about the concepts of 'good' bishop and 'bad' bishop.</p>

<pre><code>[FEN "r1bqk1nr/ppp2ppp/2np4/2b1p3/2B1P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 5"]
</code></pre>

<p>In the position above, the white knight at f3 does not have access to either of the centre squares d4 or e5. Can this knight be considered a 'bad' knight? Is it best to have developed it to f3 or would e2 be a better square for this knight?</p>
 17: <p>The "goodness" or badness" of a knight is measured by how many squares it can reach, whether or not the opposition controls it. If you somehow put Black's queen on d4, the knight on f3 can capture it.</p>

<p>The knight on f3 is "good." It can move its theoretical maximum of eight squares. A knight on one of the corner squares, h1, is "bad." It can move only two squares. A knight on e2 would have only six theoretical moves, not as good as being on f3, unless there were some other, strategic reason (e.g., supporting a knight under attack on c3.</p>
 3059: <p>Well, generally a knight on the </p>

<p>1st or 2nd rank is defensive</p>

<p>3rd rank or 4th rank is theoretically "normal", and can be used defensively &amp; aggresively.</p>

<p>5th rank is considered superior to a bishop</p>

<p>6th rank is the most devastating and might force your opponent to sacrifice an exchange to get rid of it.</p>

<p>7th rank is not as good as those on the 6th</p>

<p>8th rank basically needs to get out of the rank :D</p>
 291: <p>I'll answer this in three parts: the literal question, the concept of badly-placed pieces, and the particular example you give.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Bishops are the only piece for which the nomenclature "good" and "bad" is idiomatic. That is because the set of squares a bishop can theoretically travel to is inherent to it; a dark-squared bishop can never ever go to a light square, so if the position is such that you'd like to have a bishop on light squares, you're out of luck and your bishop is "bad". On the other hand, if you have a badly-placed knight (or queen, or rook), there's almost never something preventing you from theoretically eventually repositioning it on a good square. So people generally don't use the term "bad knights".
(People sometimes speak of endgames with a "good knight versus a bad bishop", but this is more a figure of speech meant to call attention to the fact that the bishop is bad and the knight cannot be.)</p></li>
<li><p>Pieces can of course be badly placed, but except in the case of a bishop of the wrong color, they are just referred to as badly-placed pieces. In fact an excellent strategical rule of thumb is to always consider improving the position of your worst-placed piece.</p></li>
<li><p>However, in the position you present, the knight is doing just fine on f3. It supports an eventual d4 (probably with the support of a pawn on c3), which if played at the right time could be very powerful, opening up the center. It puts pressure on Black's pawn on e5, dissuading him from playing the analogous move ...d5. And in some circumstances it could jump to g5, putting pressure on f7 or h7 (especially after Black has castled).</p></li>
</ol>
