Yes, I can explain to you.
People know many people in real lives, and they come from
different background with different talents/achievements.
Treat them as real life chess pieces and imagine the chessboard
as a situation that you need to overcome.
Do you stand a better chance of overcoming your situation if
you:
1) Know many people but you don't really know them that well or
close enough for them to help you when you needed them.
2) Know a few people and you are close enough with them to know
that they are willing to render help to you anytime.
As compared to the chess pieces on a chessboard, is the player
more likely to win because:
1) The player has many chess pieces left on the chessboard that
the player could use to win the game
2) The player know how to use a few chess pieces
effectively and focused/depended on those few chess pieces to play
a major role in the gameplan of the chess game
To clear up the confusion, the chess is referring to English
Chess. 
But the discussion isn't about chess. It is meant to wake people
up and see for themselves if the people they know are really
influential or are they themselves really as influential as they
exclaimed.
The first part is well explained.
The second part on chess is still wrong. If you don't know chess
well enough, you shouldn't use it as an analogy. A chessmaster
will make each and every single chess piece play a major role. Not
just a few major pieces. That is suicide. But who knows, you might
like committing suicide. It's again a first part good read followed
by a second part "huh?" read, much like your very first post
again.
