Total chess geek talk warning!
The values of the pieces have pretty much remained the same for quite some time (pawn=1 point, bishop/knight somewhere around 3 points, rook=5, etc).
However, if pieces one day decided to demand salaries, the point value system may not be a good enough standard to determine how much each gets.
For example, the d and e pawns might argue that they are worth more than the a and h pawns since the center pawns are almost always put into the battle first and have the highest early mortality rates in the game. The a and h pawns might counter argue, claiming they protect the King for much of the game (after he has castled of course).
Of course, now the d and e pawns will argue that sitting on your ass for most of the game is not considered a real job, and that both a and h pawns don't act as king protectors for the game anyhow since castling only occurs on one half of the board.
Meanwhile, the bishops and knights, hearing the pawn debate, might argue that their pay should at least be equal to rooks, since they are put into the line of fire far earlier than rooks, and that they get sacraficed in exchanges far more often than rooks, making their mortality rates high enough to justify wage equality. Rooks will counter, saying that yes, they sit around a lot and smoke cigs early on, but they work their butts of in the late stages of the game.
Bishops and knights will of course then argue that at least rooks have a higher chance of returning to their families at the end of the game. Rooks will demand proof of this, and at the same time mock the bishops and the knights for going for the family card in the debate.
The King and Queen, meanwhile, are quite happy with the pay they are getting and know full well that their enormous salaries are justified. They sit back with a smug look on their faces as the other pieces argue around them.
Originally posted by BedlamYep. Generally the center pawns are worth more than flank pawns, but the tables turn in a pawn race with just kings and pawns.
[b]pawn=1 point, bishop/knight somewhere around 3 points, rook=5, etc).
The value of the pieces are never static, for example an outposted white knight on e6 which cant be challenged might well be worth 5+.[/b]
I say they all get paid piece work. No set salary, but game-by-game performance reviews with the pay based on the work performed.
Recently I had to address this very question that you're brought up and it left my chess budget in ruins. My troubles began as my pieces over the years have not had very good morale and I was forced to hire mercenaries to supplement vacationing regulars, fed up with my inconsistent generalship and needing a rest. Even the queen herself was not a very supportive spouse and wasn't surprised that I would have to turn to thugs for hire.
My problem, plain and simple, was discrimination. How could I hire troops practically without basing employment decisions on color? My first few games I decided to go on with it anyways, and when I found out that my army would be either black or white I would hire soldiers of the appropriate color.
Then came the lawsuits. I had several former employees bring charges against me and then there was class-action lawsuit. My race-based employment for games could not be denied and I lost all of the cases against me. My regular army's numbers have fallen even more and now I have to maintain a diverse workplace in all my games. My finances are in ruins!