I never thought of the knight being an anti-queen before now.
@simonchris1729
This is a long shot, but do you happen to know the name/author of the book you found that in? It looks a lot like a chess book I read 35 years ago and wanted to look up again.
@simonchris1729 YESSSS. Enough of this “horse moves in an L-shape” tomfoolery. This is the right way to think about knights.
@simonchris1729 Is there a modern Chess set where the queen is a bomber and the knight is AA artillery?
@simonchris1729 @acousticmirror I want to play with the anti queen now.

@ex0du5 That would be a new piece. Queen + horsey. Something like an Amazon on horseback, or a female centaur. Hang on, turns out they're called Centaurides:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaurides

@simonchris1729

Centaurides - Wikipedia

@simonchris1729 Yes! A nice way to think about this is the knight is the only piece that can attack the queen, without the possibility of being taken by the queen.

@simonchris1729 @mcc ah yes, the opposite of a Queen. A Neeuq, if you will, hence the notation for it being N.

Makes perfect sense. 🤔

@simonchris1729 @sf105 Just two days ago I did an exercise (from a Yasser Sierawan book) where the board has only a queen and a knight, and the goal is to capture the knight with the queen.
@simonchris1729 Yeah I loved it when it was first explained to me - the knights weirdness makes so much more sense - it's the only piece that can threaten the queen without also being threatened itself. And why it works so well with the queen to get checkmates.

@simonchris1729
By similar logic (at distance 1) the Rook and Bishop are also each other's "dual" or "anti-piece", which makes the whole thing nicely symmetric and whole.

Kings and pawns stay special.

@carlton

@simonchris1729 "if you subtract the queen from the board..."
@simonchris1729 This also allows the knight to fork any other piece or pawn except for another knight.