1 edit
Sorry. I missed this argument.
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
I didn't subtract the common reaching squares for both cases. I just subtracted the squares that cannot be reached due to blockage.
1 edit
Originally posted by BahariIt depends on the situation.
Which is more valuable, 30 kg of water or 30kg of gold? Think about it.
In most situations the gold is more valuable. In a situation where the water has more value. Then you are most certain screwed anyway,
(the above is written from the point of view of a human)
1 edit
Originally posted by MetBierOpYou are right. In most situations 30kg of gold is more valuable. This means if we don't know that we need 30kg of water more than 30kg of gold, then the later must be more valuable than the former.
It depends on the situation.
In most situations the gold is more valuable. In a situation where the water has more value. Then you are most certain screwed anyway,
(the above is written from the point of view of a human)
Back to assigning values to the pieces on the chessboard. If we don't have any clear winning strategy that we can expect from our exchange menuaver, we better try at least to preserve material balance . That is how assigning exchange values to the pieces makes sense.