Originally posted by Roper300
The values of the pieces are only to give you an idea for the strength of every piece and they are related to the INITIAL POSITION ONLY.
I don’t think it is related to the initial position. In the initial position, the major pieces feel more clumsy than the minor pieces. It takes more time to get the rooks into play, and bringing the queen out too early can lead to being attacked with loss of tempo. I also don’t believe that all pawns are equal to 1 or any other value - the central pawns are often more useful.
Giving the pieces numerical values is just a very crude guideline to help beginners who thoughtlessly swap rooks for knights, etc. It’s only to get them off the bottom rung of the ladder, after which it’s benefit becomes counterproductive the longer it is followed. And we shouldn’t look for any indepth reasoning behind such crude guidelines. People just considered things like, “on average, is a rook more effective than a knight?” or “on average, how many pawns would I need to compensate for a bishop”. The “on average” is key – every position will be different and we should avoid playing “on average”.
Computers are different. They only ever think in terms of numbers for everything. What value do you give to open files, king safety or double pawns? I don’t know any but a computer needs to. Kauffman did some anaylsis using a big database of games in order to work out average pieces values. I believe this was used to help tune some engines such as Rybka. For humans it is interesting but of little practical value since we don’t numerate everything. e.g. I have an appreciation of when a car is better than a bike and vice versa without assigning them numbers, and I do likewise for the chess pieces.