Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
-
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
The Rook = 5pts Bishop =3 pts is purely a guide for beginners, it has to done to give them
a relative piece value when showing them basic tactics. A PIn, Skerer, A Fork etc.
Later Gambits and Sacrifices will be discussed and soon, hopefully, they will drop the points table and play chess.
a relative piece value when showing them basic tactics. A PIn, Skerer, A Fork etc.
Later Gambits and Sacrifices will be discussed and soon, hopefully, they will drop the points table and play chess.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
But not the light touch that ought to go with thatMJMcCready wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:27 pmOr alternatively reconsider the point that some of us have a sense of humour and a more light-hearted approach
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 3255
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
Yes that's true and intentionally so. I am proud of my very harsh working class upbringing although not in its totality. It's drifted that way because a broader spectrum of opinions and backgrounds on this forum has been left sorely wanting. The pretentiousness it panders to all too often I can do without thank you very much. I am an academic which on a personal note, compounds the problems as I see them.
-
- Posts: 723
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
I think it was Gerald Abrahams who once commented that being the exchange "down" in the early middle game could often actually be an advantage.
And now (having got the on-topic stuff out of the way) I see that less middle-classery and some humour are requested. OK then:
And now (having got the on-topic stuff out of the way) I see that less middle-classery and some humour are requested. OK then:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"The chess-board is the world ..... the player on the other side is hidden from us ..... he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance."
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)
-
- Posts: 1026
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
"Years of research involving the strongest chess software and hardware in the world by GM Larry Kaufman and others suggests that the most correct (rounded) piece values 1 (pawn), 3.45 (knight), 3.55 (bishop), 5.25 (rook) and 10 for the queen." (Applying Logic in Chess by Erik Kislik, Gambit, 2018.) No, I don't believe it, either.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
You'd want to know how they arrived at that conclusion though.
For what it's worth, Euwe (and/or a co-author, I think, I can't remember the name of the book) recommended 4.5 for the rook and 8 for the queen, and I've used those figures as my benchmark for several decades.
For what it's worth, Euwe (and/or a co-author, I think, I can't remember the name of the book) recommended 4.5 for the rook and 8 for the queen, and I've used those figures as my benchmark for several decades.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 3568
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
There's a large selection of possible relative values of pieces to choose from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_pie ... tive_value.
With some of them going to two decimal places, I think I'd have to use a pencil and paper to keep track of them during a game, which would, of course, be against the rules.
With some of them going to two decimal places, I think I'd have to use a pencil and paper to keep track of them during a game, which would, of course, be against the rules.
-
- Posts: 3255
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
But numbers are static and pieces in play are dynamic, that's the problem. Sometimes a knight can be stronger than a queen. As a general guide yes its helpful but you have to know what the limits of that are, and as Kramnik kept saying last week, rooks are only stronger in the endgame.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:52 amYou'd want to know how they arrived at that conclusion though.
For what it's worth, Euwe (and/or a co-author, I think, I can't remember the name of the book) recommended 4.5 for the rook and 8 for the queen, and I've used those figures as my benchmark for several decades.
-
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
I'm a bit surprised by the discussion. I've never tried to assign dynamic values to the pieces. I might ask myself if a good knight and a pawn are enough for the exchange for example. But I've never thought "that good knight is worth 4.3". Do people do that?
-
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
Attentive readers will recall the name of Martin Goldschmidt cropping up on the YMCA thread.
Why do I resurrect the name of this long-forgotten player, more recently associated with the music industry?
Because, in 1975, he did me a great service. He pointed out what he saw as my main weakness. Which was: lack of understanding of positional sacrifices.
He was right then and probably nothing much has changed. Take Fischer's brilliant ...Rh8 in game 13 of the first Spassky match (I don't count the second match anyway). I didn't understand it in 1972 and I'm still not sure I understand it now!
Why do I resurrect the name of this long-forgotten player, more recently associated with the music industry?
Because, in 1975, he did me a great service. He pointed out what he saw as my main weakness. Which was: lack of understanding of positional sacrifices.
He was right then and probably nothing much has changed. Take Fischer's brilliant ...Rh8 in game 13 of the first Spassky match (I don't count the second match anyway). I didn't understand it in 1972 and I'm still not sure I understand it now!
-
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
I recall Soltis's not thinking much of that ...Rh8 move; it gets featured in Chess Mistakes: How To Detect And Avoid Them, and he recommends ...Rg8 instead.
-
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
Is it possible you can give us all a rest from this tripe. If others disagree. I am happy to withdraw but I personally find it tiresome.MJMcCready wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:55 pmYes that's true and intentionally so. I am proud of my very harsh working class upbringing although not in its totality. It's drifted that way because a broader spectrum of opinions and backgrounds on this forum has been left sorely wanting. The pretentiousness it panders to all too often I can do without thank you very much. I am an academic which on a personal note, compounds the problems as I see them.
-
- Posts: 5843
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
Exchange sacrifices - Petrosian - Spassky (10) 1966 is quite a good example.
-
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 4:30 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
MJMcCready wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:55 pm
Yes that's true and intentionally so. I am proud of my very harsh working class upbringing although not in its totality. It's drifted that way because a broader spectrum of opinions and backgrounds on this forum has been left sorely wanting. The pretentiousness it panders to all too often I can do without thank you very much. I am an academic which on a personal note, compounds the problems as I see them.
John Moore wrote
Is it possible you can give us all a rest from this tripe. If others disagree. I am happy to withdraw but I personally find it tiresome.
Agree totally John
The lovely irony is that is that MJMcCready as a self claimed "academic " has no realisation that his posts are far more pretentious then those on the forum that seem to irritate him
Yes that's true and intentionally so. I am proud of my very harsh working class upbringing although not in its totality. It's drifted that way because a broader spectrum of opinions and backgrounds on this forum has been left sorely wanting. The pretentiousness it panders to all too often I can do without thank you very much. I am an academic which on a personal note, compounds the problems as I see them.
John Moore wrote
Is it possible you can give us all a rest from this tripe. If others disagree. I am happy to withdraw but I personally find it tiresome.
Agree totally John
The lovely irony is that is that MJMcCready as a self claimed "academic " has no realisation that his posts are far more pretentious then those on the forum that seem to irritate him
-
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm
Re: Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.
Yes, but:Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:17 pmExchange sacrifices - Petrosian - Spassky (10) 1966 is quite a good example.