How many points is a queen worth?

If anyone has doubts about the merit of the point-count system, just look at computers. It seems to work rather effectively for them.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If anyone has doubts about the merit of the point-count system, just look at computers. It seems to work rather effectively for them.

Computers use numbers for every part of their evaluation... king safety, pawn structure, space, etc. They have no alternative. Humans don't think in such numbers for chess, and I see no reason why it should apply to material except as a very crude guideline for beginners.

Two Rooks are slightly stronger than a Queen. They are slightly weaker than two Knights and a Bishop, and a little more so than two Bishops and a Knight. The power of the Knight decreases as the pieces are changed off. The power of the Rook, on the contrary, increases.

Jose R. Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals, p. 25.

Originally posted by Varenka
Computers use numbers for every part of their evaluation... king safety, pawn structure, space, etc. They have no alternative. Humans don't think in such numbers for chess, and I see no reason why it should apply to material except as a very crude guideline for beginners.

Wow.

The last statement is just completely ignorant. There are so many counterexamples: David Tebb in this thread [a strong master still using point-count], Kasparov saying they taught him two passers on the 6th rank is worth a rook [as if that is still a poignant comment! or maybe he is reverting back to his old 'beginner' ways 🙄], masters analyzing their games to try and prove compensation for the exchange [showing that they obviously know they are 'down' points], GMs laboriously making sure they don't lose even so much as a pawn in many of their games, etc. etc.

Queen = 9 Generally

It's easy to remember because queen + pawn = 10 and rook + rook = 10. There is much debate whether the queen and pawn or rook are better. It definitely depends on the position.

Although queen (9) = 3 minor pieces (B + B + N), the queen usually has its hands full. Again, it definitely depends on the position.

Sometimes two bishops even compensate for a queen.

The main thing that assigning numerical value to the pieces does is give you some idea of when you are making a better trade (exchange). You really can't depend for other factors.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Wow.

The last statement is just completely ignorant. There are so many counterexamples: David Tebb in this thread [a strong master still using point-count], Kasparov saying they taught him two passers on the 6th rank is worth a rook [as if that is still a poignant comment! or maybe he is reverting back to his old 'beginner' ways 🙄], masters analyzing ...[text shortened]... iously making sure they don't lose even so much as a pawn in many of their games, etc. etc.

Just show me one example of Kasparov using actual *numbers* during discussion of a game. We're not talking about "two passers on the 6th rank is worth a rook", wer'e talking about if Kasparov said "two passers is equal to 5 points, which happens to be the same as a rook". But of course, the "5 points" part is never part of his thinking. He assesses; he compares; but he doesn't do arithmetic.

Sure, GMs will sacrifice a pawn and say that they have compensation for the material BUT nowhere in their thinking are they assigning numbers to anything. Computers assign numbers to everything.

Seriously, do you look at a pawn and think "1"? You don't just look at it and get a feel for it's worth?

Only beginners sit and actually think e.g. "3 + 3 + 5 + 1 +...." during a game of chess.

Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
The main thing that assigning numerical value to the pieces does is give you some idea of when you are making a better trade (exchange). You really can't depend for other factors.

But beyond the stage of being a beginner, experienced players skip doing any arithmetic explicitly.

Supposing we were to have a fight 🙂 and you could have a gun or a knife, which would you prefer in general? I bet you make your decision without asking the value of each weapon. You just know what each is capable of.

Similarly, experienced chess players have a feel for the capability of: a queen; two rooks; two doubled pawns; two connected passed pawns on the 6th rank; the fianchetted bishop in the King's Indian Defence; etc. without having to give them all an arithmetic value.

And this is what most chess players do when assessing a trade. It doesn't involve 1s, 3s, 5s, etc. Sure, they might look to see if they're a minor piece down at the end of a variation, but they're not thinking "-3" as such but instead just "a piece down".

Imo the point count is a necessary evil when first learning the game.Later one automatically forgets about it.A pawn is a pawn,not 1 point.Consider a pawn able to deliver checkmate,it's value is infinite.Would you trade such a pawn for a queen?After all,you'd win 8 points! 😉

pawn = 1 or itself
knight/bishop = 3 pawns
rook = 5 pawns
queen = 9 pawns

naturally you'll see bishops being 3.68 or knights 3.33 or rooks 5.5, etc, etc.. everyone has their own views.. Then you get the people that take 2 million games of grandmasters 2500+ and try to somehow figure out what each piece is worth. The bottom line is it depends on the position.

As Joel Benjamin has said...3 pieces (ieL 2 bishops+knight are better than a queen) even though it seems like they're worth 9 pawns each. Just that beginners would prefer a single piece the queen as it's easy to control. The 3 pieces are better but you would have to know how to coordinate them properly.

2 rooks should be about a queen and a pawn...although this depends on the position again, sometimes either one can be a lot better.

in general if you're giving up the exchange and loosing a rook, make sure you get atleast a pawn. Joel Benjamin says about bishop+1.5 pawns would be a rook, or knight +1.5 pawns to a rook. 1 Pawn would be too little, 2 would be an advantage. Again depends on position.

We've all seen GM games where a knight or 2 knights dominate a rook or 2 rooks, showing it's all about the position

i don't think the points system for counting material was ever intended to apply to every situation, nor has anyone really advocated for it this way. Even a lot of beginners are familiar with the basic ideas of gambits and sacrifices (I can say this with certainty because I am one).

it was always meant to be a rule of thumb and it does this job well.

9.75

http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

I haven't looked at ATY's site there, but i think i vaguely remember looking at it sometime ago...
Anyways, i use
P=1
N=B=3.25 (I like Bishops better, but the only reason for that is to sac them at f7/f2 or h7/h2...)
R=5
Q=9.75

note: beginners are usually taught 1,3,3,5,9, but then according to that R+P=B+N. I tend to disagree, two pieces are worth more than a rook and pawn, especially earlier in the game

might have asked this before but is an exchange of a queen for a rook and bishop in a fairly equal posistion good?

i have played this a few times and lost with the queen . it can get outnumbered.

a queen and knight is equal to a rook plus two bishops and a pawn

two rooks and a bishop is equal to two knights a bishop and 2 connected wing pawns

a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

screw the point system. a queen is worth 3 pieces bishops and knights and thats it. I have rarely seen a good game where one player trades a queen for two pieces and win unless it was a sacraficial line leading to mate.