1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitGo on then.... explain how a GM evaluates concepts such as king safety; open lines; weak squares; etc. Are you saying our minds associate numbers with these? And if not, why must a GM then use numbers for evaluating "rooks", "knights", etc?
Riiiiight - 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!
What rugged logic.
I said it earlier... the point-system is only a method for beginners because they don't appreciate bad bishops; the bishop pair; weak pieces; etc. But GMs do and hence the point-system becomes redundant for them. They use a much more sophisticated evaluation that doesn't rely on factors needing numbers.
Originally posted by VarenkaNo guideline is mandatory to use; but the point-count system has proven so useful that it is standard for all serious players to know and use.
Go on then.... explain how a GM evaluates concepts such as king safety; open lines; weak squares; etc. Are you saying our minds associate numbers with these? And if not, why must a GM then use numbers for evaluating "rooks", "knights", etc?
I said it earlier... the point-system is only a method for beginners because they don't appreciate bad bishops; th ...[text shortened]... hey use a much more sophisticated evaluation that doesn't rely on factors needing numbers.
The reason we don't tend to assign numbers to things like King safety is that experience has shown that these things are more subjective in importance and thus resist any general assignment of value.
I said it earlier... the point-system is only a method for beginners because they don't appreciate bad bishops; the bishop pair; weak pieces; etc. But GMs do and hence the point-system becomes redundant for them.
There is nothing redundant about the point system. Rather, GMs are aware of the different 'imbalances' [as IM Silman calls them], material being just one of them.
They use a much more sophisticated evaluation that doesn't rely on factors needing numbers.
For the factor of material, you remain mistaken. The counterexamples remain in the thread if you care to refresh your memory.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe reason we don't tend to assign numbers to things like King safety is that experience has shown that these things are more subjective in importance and thus resist any general assignment of value.
And you think material has fixed values? So you value all your pawns the same? And all your pieces? And everyone else agrees with your values? Material value isn't subjective? Of course it's subjective.
There is nothing redundant about the point system.
Apart from the fact that GMs don't do arithmetic. And you like to dismiss this fact by saying that it is "ingrained".
The counterexamples remain in the thread if you care to refresh your memory.
The only examples in this thread are GMs referring to the *amount* of pieces they have. You've yet to show a GM such as Kasparov using the point-scale where e.g. queen = 9; rook = 5; etc.
By highlighting the example of factors such as king safety, etc. I've proven that GMs do not need to use numeric values when assessing factors in a position. And you've gave no reason why material must have numeric values attached.
Read Rowson's "Materialism" chapter in "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins".
Originally posted by wittywonka9.Not~8.Not~10.
I've heard different people say different things, but I was curious what you thought about how many points a queen is worth...some say 8 points...some say 9...I've even heard a few call a queen worth 10 points...
In other words...is a queen worth trading for a rook and a bishop?
Post your thoughts, please...
1 edit
Originally posted by DejectionSorry.My~space~bar~key~is~not~functioning.
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
Relative~strength~for~exchange~maneuver
Pawn=1
B=3
N=3
R=5
Q=9
K=No~relative~value~since~you~can't~exchange~your~king
One~exception~that~I~know.Two~minor~pieces=a~rook+2pawns,
assuming~the~exchange~has~nothing~to~do~with~immediate~
winning~position.Winning~or~getting~a~fair~exchange~is~the~
last~thing~you~want~to~consider~each~time~you~make~a~move,
but~don't~skip~it.Think~about~your~attacking~strategy~your~initiative~
your~exchange~maneuver.You~won't~know~for~sure~that~they~may~
lead~you~to~win~the~game.Your~opponents~may~able~to~find~the~a
ccurate~defense~to~thwart~your~winning~opportunity.If~you~don't~consider~
material~balance~in~you~favor,~you~may~lose~the~game~during~the~end~
game~simply~because~material~balance~is~not~in~your~favor.
I~rarely~be~beaten~when~material~advantage~in~my~favor.
3 edits
Originally posted by VarenkaThere's nothing new here. My responses to these arguments have not changed.
[b]The reason we don't tend to assign numbers to things like King safety is that experience has shown that these things are more subjective in importance and thus resist any general assignment of value.
And you think material has fixed values? So you value all your pawns the same? And all your pieces? And everyone else agrees with your values? Mat attached.
Read Rowson's "Materialism" chapter in "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins".[/b]
Originally posted by JusuhThe level of sophistication you're describing comes later. It's not for beginners.
well here we see the problem with point-count. Beginners who have been taught to use the point-count system will for sure miss great number of opportunities. Like; How many times have you seen a rook (5 points) to be sacrificed for a knight (3 points) to gain an lasting initiative? Knight (3p) for a pawn (1p) to speed up your attack? Bishop (3.5p [lol]) for a ...[text shortened]... ters. Its no good for you to be, say, 15 "points" up in material when you are going get mated.
Originally posted by ShamashThe article I linked above has interesting things to say about that.
found myself playing Black in a very drawish Caro-Kann middlegame slugfest getting nowhere.
Very tough opponent, always finding perfect, attacking moves.
Then I looked at my opponent's games, and saw a pattern of wins with diagonal strikes involving bishop and Queen batteries.
Maneuvered into 2 exchanges:
Exchanged knight fo ...[text shortened]... Into a Q vs 2 R endgame -- which I then won.
Only by swapping 2 rooks for a Queen.
How about queen for two rooks? Although many authors talk about queen and pawn equaling two rooks, this is only close to true with no minor pieces on the board; with two or more minors each, the queen needs no pawns to equal the rooks. I recall a famous Portisch-Fischer game in which Portisch "won" two rooks for Fischer's queen right out of the opening, but Fischer soon won a weak pawn and went on to win rather easily, despite the nominal point equality. In fact Fischer's annotations severely criticized Portisch for making the trade; Fischer understood very well that with lots of material on the board, the queen is every bit as good as the rooks, so once he won a pawn he was effectively a full pawn ahead.
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Originally posted by Mad RookI never understood why people don't like old threads bumped up by someone with something to say. Some posts and threads are a gold mine of information and ideas that shouldn't die, especially if that topic is one that someone will probably ask about again.
I feel a little silly posting to an old thread that's just been bumped, but what the hey.
I agree with others that it depends on the position and maybe a few other factors. But if you put a gun to my head and demand an average value for the queen, I'd say it's a 9 on the Reinfeld scale and a 9.75 on the Kaufman scale. Here's the Kaufman article:
http://danheisman.home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI didn't say that I didn't like old threads being bumped. It's just that I always wonder if the OP is even aware of the bumped thread. But you're right, sometimes bumping a thread has its advantages. I added to the bumped thread, so clearly I thought there was value to the bumping. Yes, you're correct, sometimes there's gold in buried threads.
I never understood why people don't like old threads bumped up by someone with something to say. Some posts and threads are a gold mine of information and ideas that shouldn't die, especially if that topic is one that someone will probably ask about again.
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaIf you don't have clear initiative to win the game or you cannot recover back material deficit don't give up your queen for a rook and a bishop. I can show a simple logic why this is true. Place a queen in the middle of the board (Rank 4 or 5, File d or e). Is it true that the queen within a single move can reach the total 27 squares? Now do it the same for a rook and a bishop (Rook at Rank 4, file d, bishop at rank 5, file e). The total number of reaching square is 23, right? It doesn’t really matter where we want to place our bishop or rook to maximize the number of squares to be reached, one of them will block the reaching squares for the other.
I've heard different people say different things, but I was curious what you thought about how many points a queen is worth...some say 8 points...some say 9...I've even heard a few call a queen worth 10 points...
In other words...is a queen worth trading for a rook and a bishop?
Post your thoughts, please...
“Chess is like a war. We bigger the area our forces can reach within a short period of time the bigger is our chances to win the war”.
Now, let’s place two rooks. (Rank 4, file d and Rank 5 file e). How many reaching square that we have? 28, right? That is why mathematically we need an additional Q+ pawn to break even with the 2 rooks.
How about a rook and two bishop? 36 squares, right? That is why R+2Bs are too strong for a queen. R + 2N? 30 right? Does it mean R + 2N are weaker than R + 2B. Yes, based on the ultimate strength. However, in reality, the actual reaching squares that counts. Here is where we need skills & knowledges to ensure we have the most effective pieces to suit our desired game plans. One of the factors to be considered is the number of reaching squares.
Originally posted by Baharido it the same for a rook and a bishop (Rook at Rank 4, file d, bishop at rank 5, file e). The total number of reaching square is 23
Why do you exclude the squares that the rook and bishop both cover? One advantage of the rook + bishop compared with the queen is that they can attack some squares twice whereas the queen can only do so once. Why ignore this factor?
Now, let’s place two rooks. (Rank 4, file d and Rank 5 file e). How many reaching square that we have? 28, right? That is why mathematically we need an additional Q+ pawn to break even with the 2 rooks.
Using your counting method of excluding squares attacked twice, wouldn't two rooks control 26 squares (2 x 14 - 2 shared)? And if so, the queen would be worth more than two rooks.
By-the-way, although I'm disagreeing with your calculations, I agree that a player needs to appreciate the capability of each piece. And this includes the piece's mobility in an open board. But then we also need to consider the bishop's ability to control one colour of square only; the knight's ability to jump over pieces; etc.
Originally posted by BahariIt's nice to know that you got your keyboard fixed. 🙂
If you don't have clear initiative to win the game or you cannot recover back material deficit don't give up your queen for a rook and a bishop. I can show a simple logic why this is true. Place a queen in the middle of the board (Rank 4 or 5, File d or e). Is it true that the queen within a single move can reach the total 27 squares? Now do it the same for a ...[text shortened]... our desired game plans. One of the factors to be considered is the number of reaching squares.
3 edits
You said "Why do you exclude the squares that the rook and bishop both cover? One advantage of the rook + bishop compared with the queen is that they can attack some squares twice whereas the queen can only do so once. Why ignore this factor?"
Both of the pieces are on the board during the game. In many occasions your strategic initiatives to win the game will be disturbed by the fact your rook my block your bishop's potentially sharp moves, or the other way around. Such scenarios are impossibles with a queen.
Regarding simultenous attack over the same square, yes you are right. R+B have additional advantage. As I mentioned to you, that is something to do with your game plan. This is another factor you have to take into consideration. You have to develop your game plan so that R+B is better than a queen in order to realize the advantage. If you don't develop your game towards that direction, such advantage may not be the determining factor to win the game.
For example, if you you have the option to execute exchange menuaver whether to have Q+2p or R+B+2p to go againts your opponent's 2R, which one you like to have?
I would suggest that if you have connected pawns then go for Q+2p. If your pawns are not connected, go for R+B +2p. The winning strategy would be to force exchage a pawn for a rook. R+B+p is pretty too strong for the opposing rook. Q+2 isolated pawns, to me is harder to overcome double rooks on the 6th rank and perpetual checks againts your king. This is my opnion. I have never come across such scenario.