Originally posted by Black Star UchessI think most people would say that it's a bad deal for the player giving up the queen. According to the old Reinfeld scale, the queenless player would need an extra pawn for a fair trade. And according to the Kaufman scale, the queenless player would need an extra pawn AND the advantage of the bishop pair for the trade to be even.
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.
Originally posted by VarenkaJust show me one example of Kasparov using actual *numbers* during discussion of a game.
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 co ...[text shortened]... ginners sit and actually think e.g. "3 + 3 + 5 + 1 +...." during a game of chess.
I already did. See if you can pick the number out of the Kasparov quote I gave:
"Two connected passers on the 6th rank are worth a Rook."(And "a Rook" is exactly the same as "one Rook" ).
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.
The numbers are there and cannot be avoided. TWO passed pawns equal ONE rook. We use numbers for comparisons all the time, even if some of us are not fully aware that we are doing so.
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.
"A pawn" is the same as "ONE pawn" - again, numbers are inescapable. Your same GM will claim he is up material if he wins an exchange [Rook for Bishop] later on.
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?
No, because that's not the point of the system. It's to compare value with other pieces.
Only beginners sit and actually think e.g. "3 + 3 + 5 + 1 +...." during a game of chess.
This is what happens in a 'desperado' situation [each side is taking pieces in different areas of the board]. The point-count system is critical in finding out who comes out ahead once the smoke clears. The fact that some terms may cancel out [I take a Knight, he takes a Knight, so that much is even] is no different than canceling out like terms on each side of an equation. It does not change the fact that a numerical comparison will be done.
Q=9 R=5 B and Kn=3 pawns=3,all these values are as correct as is possible before a game begins,but obviously these values change as the positions change. 4 joined pawns and King are obviously worth more at endgame position than 2 knights and King ,and thousands of other similar examples as has been said before--------😵
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitAre you really so stupid?
The statement "Two connected passers on the 6th rank are worth are rook" gives no numerical point value in terms of what a rook is actually worth. It could be 1, 2, 3, etc. Nothing in that statement says which.
Do you think if someone says "I'm two pawns and one knight up" they are applying the point system? Get a grip. The point system means saying something like "1 (value of a pawn) + 1 + 3 (value of a knight) = 5". i.e. where the pieces are attributed point values. But because you couldn't find an example of Kasparov doing so, you had to resort to some silly example where he's using numbers to refer to the amount of pieces and not their point values. Counting the pieces is not the same as applying the point system.
Originally posted by VarenkaThe statement "Two connected passers on the 6th rank are worth are rook" gives no numerical point value in terms of what a rook is actually worth.
Are you really so stupid?
The statement "Two connected passers on the 6th rank are worth are rook" gives no numerical point value in terms of what a rook is actually worth. It could be 1, 2, 3, etc. Nothing in that statement says which.
Do you think if someone says "I'm two pawns and one knight up" they are applying the point system? Get a grip. T ...[text shortened]... their point values. Counting the pieces is not the same as applying the point system.
There is no 'actual' worth, only comparative worth. This is all the point-count system seeks to evaluate. Kasparov's comment is an extension of the point-count system.
Do you think if someone says "I'm two pawns and one knight up" they are applying the point system?
Not necessarily. However, if they say, "I am up the exchange for a pawn", then yes.
The point system means saying something like "1 (value of a pawn) + 1 + 3 (value of a knight) = 5". i.e. where the pieces are attributed point values. But because you couldn't find an example of Kasparov doing so, you had to resort to some silly example where he's using numbers to refer to the amount of pieces and not their point values. Counting the pieces is not the same as applying the point system.
If you actually think that Kasparov's statement was a mere counting of pieces, then any further discussion is hopeless. Cheers.
Originally posted by SwissGambitThere is no 'actual' worth, only comparative worth.
But earlier you stated:
"If anyone has doubts about the merit of the point-count system, just look at computers. It seems to work rather effectively for them.
So now you're saying computers do "comparative worth"? They don't assign values to pieces?
The point system is called so because it involves points being assigned to pieces in order to assess their worth. e.g. queen = 9 points, rook = 5 points, etc. And your suggestion that because Kasparov compares material factors then he must be using the point system is nonsense.
Originally posted by VarenkaThey do use "comparative worth". It just so happens that they decide to use pawn=1 for ease of calculation.
[b]There is no 'actual' worth, only comparative worth.
But earlier you stated:
"If anyone has doubts about the merit of the point-count system, just look at computers. It seems to work rather effectively for them.
So now you're saying computers do "comparative worth"? They don't assign values to pieces?
The point system is called so b ...[text shortened]... se Kasparov compares material factors then he must be using the point system is nonsense.[/b]
Originally posted by DejectionBut the way a computer does "comparative worth" is different from a GM. Computers must translate to numbers and then compare the numbers. GMs can compare a queen to three minor pieces without ever assigning a minor piece a numerical value.
They do use "comparative worth". It just so happens that they decide to use pawn=1 for ease of calculation.
The point-count system is based on assigning a scale of point values to pieces.
Originally posted by VarenkaSo now you're saying computers do "comparative worth"? They don't assign values to pieces?
[b]There is no 'actual' worth, only comparative worth.
But earlier you stated:
"If anyone has doubts about the merit of the point-count system, just look at computers. It seems to work rather effectively for them.
So now you're saying computers do "comparative worth"? They don't assign values to pieces?
The point system is called so b ...[text shortened]... se Kasparov compares material factors then he must be using the point system is nonsense.[/b]
They assign arbitrary values, for the sole purpose of comparing the value of pieces, or groups of pieces.
Originally posted by SwissGambitAnd do you still think Kasparov does this too?
[b]So now you're saying computers do "comparative worth"? They don't assign values to pieces?
They assign arbitrary values, for the sole purpose of comparing the value of pieces, or groups of pieces.[/b]
Originally posted by SwissGambitSo you think Kasparov is consciously/subconsciously doing arithmetic - just like a computer - while playing chess? Do you think human GMs are number crunchers like computers? Do you think if you asked Kasparov to tell you what numeric evaluations he used during a game he could tell you (just like a computer log)? Of course not, because there are no such numbers at play. Just like he doesn't use numbers for evaluating king safety; the initiative; etc. either.
It's ingrained in his thinking.
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaRiiiiight - since computers calculate faster than we can and handle and remember numbers better and more accurately than we do, we must not use any numeric concepts or math skill at all!
So you think Kasparov is consciously/subconsciously doing arithmetic - just like a computer - while playing chess? Do you think human GMs are number crunchers like computers? Do you think if you asked Kasparov to tell you what numeric evaluations he used during a game he could tell you (just like a computer log)? Of course not, because there are no such n ...[text shortened]... lay. Just like he doesn't use numbers for evaluating king safety; the initiative; etc. either.
What rugged logic.