Assigning numerical values to chess pieces.

[Geoff Chandler]

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.

[JustinHorton]

Or alternatively reconsider the point that some of us have a sense of humour and a more light-hearted approach

But not the light touch that ought to go with that

[MJMcCready]

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 Clarke]

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:

[Mike Gunn]

"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.

[JustinHorton]

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.

[Ian Thompson]

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.

[MJMcCready]

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.

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.

[Paul Cooksey]

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?

[Nick Ivell]

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!

[IM Jack Rudd]

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.

[John Moore]

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.

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.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Exchange sacrifices - Petrosian - Spassky (10) 1966 is quite a good example.

[John Sellen]

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

[Paul Cooksey]

Exchange sacrifices - Petrosian - Spassky (10) 1966 is quite a good example.

Yes, but:[Event "Candidates Tournament"] [Site "Zuerich"] [Date "1953.08.31"] [Round "2"] [White "Reshevsky, Samuel Herman"] [Black "Petrosian, Tigran V"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "E58"] [PlyCount "81"] [EventDate "1953.08.30"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "30"] [EventCountry "SUI"] [SourceTitle "Candidates"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "1999.07.01"] [SourceVersion "2"] [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"] [SourceQuality "1"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d5 6. Nf3 c5 7. O-O Nc6 8. a3 Bxc3 9. bxc3 b6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. Bb2 c4 12. Bc2 Bg4 13. Qe1 Ne4 14. Nd2 Nxd2 15. Qxd2 Bh5 16. f3 Bg6 17. e4 Qd7 18. Rae1 dxe4 19. fxe4 Rfe8 20. Qf4 b5 21. Bd1 Re7 22. Bg4 Qe8 23. e5 a5 24. Re3 Rd8 25. Rfe1 Re6 26. a4 Ne7 27. Bxe6 fxe6 28. Qf1 Nd5 29. Rf3 Bd3 30. Rxd3 cxd3 31. Qxd3 b4 32. cxb4 axb4 33. a5 Ra8 34. Ra1 Qc6 35. Bc1 Qc7 36. a6 Qb6 37. Bd2 b3 38. Qc4 h6 39. h3 b2 40. Rb1 Kh8 41. Be1 1/2-1/2