Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    21 Apr '11 19:56 / 3 edits
    Let's suppose we were to rate the king based purely on it's ability to move, the same we judge the other pieces. How much would the King be worth? Would you say it would be worth more or less than the knight?

    Based on nothing else but the King's ability to move, I'd say it's worth maybe 2.5 points.
  2. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    21 Apr '11 20:32
    Much like a minor piece it would entirely depend on the pawn structure. I could see a king being powerful in a closed position where it could do a "king walk" into the enemy position.
  3. 21 Apr '11 20:38
    Originally posted by vivify
    Let's suppose we were to rate the king based purely on it's ability to move, the same we judge the other pieces. How much would the King be worth? Would you say it would be worth more or less than the knight?

    Based on nothing else but the King's ability to move, I'd say it's worth maybe 2.5 points.
    A little more than 4 pawns, per the author of "Elements of Positional Evaluation."
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    21 Apr '11 20:50 / 1 edit
    If there was a piece which moved like the king did, I've always thought it would make a great defensive tool. Based my experience with endgames, the King's a rather sluggish peice if you need to rely on it for offense. However, I do agree that it's possibly the peice to get around tight pawn defense, since it has the best freedom of movement, aside of from the queen.

    And Mad Rook, I'll have to read that book. Sound's interesting.
  5. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    22 Apr '11 03:51
    Originally posted by Mad Rook
    A little more than 4 pawns, per the author of "Elements of Positional Evaluation."
    I always figured the K's power to equal about 4 pts. Of course the game depends on his safety, so it's largely a moot point.
  6. 22 Apr '11 13:38
    Originally posted by vivify
    If there was a piece which moved like the king did, I've always thought it would make a great defensive tool. Based my experience with endgames, the King's a rather sluggish peice if you need to rely on it for offense. However, I do agree that it's possibly the peice to get around tight pawn defense, since it has the best freedom of movement, aside of from the queen.
    And yet, experts generally agree that in the endgame, when it does not have to hide in a corner, it has an attacking power only little less than a rook, and more than the average minor piece. It may not be fast, but it covers everything around it.

    For comparison (a trivial one, but you might get some idea): you can't mate a lone king with any single piece (i.e., not using your king to help), not even a queen. You can mate with a queen and any other single piece, even a pawn if it's well-placed. Without queens, you can mate with a rook and a rook, or a rook and a king, but not with a rook and a minor piece (try it; they don't cover enough squares), and a rook and a pawn only works by promoting the pawn. So in that case, a king is worth as much as a rook, and more than a bishop or knight.

    Richard
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    22 Apr '11 13:48
    ^ Very good point.
  8. 22 Apr '11 16:29
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    but not with a rook and a minor piece (try it; they don't cover enough squares)
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    22 Apr '11 16:52
    Originally posted by Varenka
    [fen]k7/R7/2N5/8/8/8/8/8[/fen]
    ^ how do you post a board on the forums?
  10. Standard member chessicle
    The Chessicle
    22 Apr '11 16:53
    Originally posted by Varenka
    [fen]k7/R7/2N5/8/8/8/8/8[/fen]
    Can't force this mate without the king.
  11. Standard member vivify
    rain
    22 Apr '11 17:09
    ^ why not?
  12. 22 Apr '11 17:20
    Originally posted by vivify
    ^ why not?
    chessicle is right - I was showing a final position that can't be forced. The knight cannot help to get the king into the corner *and* be ready to defend the rook. Compare KNN vs K for a similar case.

    (To post a position use the "fen" tags as shown in the reply to my post. It uses Forsyth notation)
  13. Subscriber davaniel
    1.Nf3
    22 Apr '11 23:34
    Originally posted by chessicle
    Can't force this mate without the king.
    No you can't, but that was not the point of the post. You can't force a pawn and queen mate either, or a two knights + king mate, but it can technically be done.
  14. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    23 Apr '11 00:49
    Originally posted by vivify
    Let's suppose we were to rate the king based purely on it's ability to move, the same we judge the other pieces. How much would the King be worth? Would you say it would be worth more or less than the knight?

    Based on nothing else but the King's ability to move, I'd say it's worth maybe 2.5 points.
    Interesting question, I'd say a 4
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Just another day
    23 Apr '11 03:22
    He attacks 8 squares like the Knight does. However it's harder for him to lose squares to the edge of the board, and he can move and still cover a particular square. 4 seems reasonable, though I thought 3 at first.