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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 04 Dec '05 01:54
    Is there a priority for pieces that should generally be respected in games?
    I have a feeling it would be kinds personalized for each person, depending on each person's play style. But in general, what would it be?

    Like:
    K
  2. 04 Dec '05 05:03
    What do you mean?

    King first obv.
    Queen, rook, bishop and knights and then pawns.
  3. 04 Dec '05 13:26
    I realize that it's generally regarded that the bishop has slightly higher value then the knights. But I gotta say, when I'm in the end game without a knight a really notice the loss. I like to think it's important to keep one knight as long as possible. Of course that could explain why i'm hovering in the 1200's
  4. 04 Dec '05 13:41
    Originally posted by Panzer22
    Is there a priority for pieces that should generally be respected in games?
    I have a feeling it would be kinds personalized for each person, depending on each person's play style. But in general, what would it be?

    Like:
    K
    The king is the most important piece and must be protected from checkmate at all costs.
    And the other pieces are generally regarded to be following in material value: Queen = 9, Rook = 5, Bishop and knight = 3, Pawn = 1 (Keep this in mind when trading pieces).
    E.g. 1 knight + 2 pawns = 1 rook.

    Other things to consider: A bishop pair is valuable; especially in the endgame because it is far easier to checkmate someone with two bishops. It is practically impossible with two knights (unless the opponents blunders the king into the corner). It is also difficult to checkmate someone with a bishop and a knight at the end (although still quite possible).

    A passed pawn can be valuable if the position is suitable as the piece can be promoted (in the endgame).

    But it is always depends on the position.
  5. 04 Dec '05 13:47
    There's a lot of debate between the bishop and knight pieces but it depends on the nature of the game itself, whether it is closed or open. I have won/lost with each of these pieces on the board but either way there is not much difference in terms of value.
  6. 04 Dec '05 13:55
    Originally posted by Oddjob291
    There's a lot of debate between the bishop and knight pieces but it depends on the nature of the game itself, whether it is closed or open. I have won/lost with each of these pieces on the board but either way there is not much difference in terms of value.
    Agreed: It always depends on the position.

    A knight has the ability to jump over pieces and can move on both the light and dark coloured squares - which is good in a closed game.

    A bishop has a large range diagonally - which can be extremely effective in an open game, furthermore, one bishop can only control the dark or light coloured squares but when you have two you can control both.
  7. Standard member buffalobill
    Major Bone
    04 Dec '05 14:00
    Originally posted by Egmen
    I realize that it's generally regarded that the bishop has slightly higher value then the knights. But I gotta say, when I'm in the end game without a knight a really notice the loss. I like to think it's important to keep one knight as long as possible. Of course that could explain why i'm hovering in the 1200's
    Probably. Don't get attached to pieces or material. Here's a good reason:
    Game 1389862
    I'd gone a piece up and had a better position, so decided to swap Queens. By refusing to do so and retreating, he worsened his position each time. I could see that was the last thing he wanted to do, so I kept going after the Queen knowing full well that she would keep running away.
    The relative value of pieces is dynamic and fluid. I've won games a rook and a bishop down (lost them, too). Don't be materialistic in the right situations. The object of the game is not material, but to win. Some other ones (one a loss and the other a win):
    Game 1389856
    - I'm a rook up, but the game is lost. Some lovely sacrifices by him.
    Game 1398024
    - a Queen for a rook is a fair deal if you're going to get another Queen (note that King takes knight at the very end is a mistake). Another fair deal is giving up a piece to promote a Queen.
  8. 05 Dec '05 06:11
    Originally posted by Bad wolf
    The king is the most important piece and must be protected from checkmate at all costs.
    And the other pieces are generally regarded to be following in material value: Queen = 9, Rook = 5, Bishop and knight = 3, Pawn = 1 (Keep this in mind when trading pieces).
    E.g. 1 knight + 2 pawns = 1 rook.

    Other things to consider: A bishop pair is valuable; especi ...[text shortened]... able as the piece can be promoted (in the endgame).

    But it is always depends on the position.
    You mean Queen (9) = 2 Knights (6) and 1 bishop (3)

    I would be more than happy to lose a queen to capture 2 knights and 1 bishop of the opponent.

    I personally believe that knight is more valuable than a bishop, especially in the beginning and the mid-game.

    I would also be happy to lose a queen to capture a rook, a knight and a pawn of the opponent.

    It seems queen's value should be either 7 or 8. 9 is a bit too much.
  9. 05 Dec '05 06:11
    Game 1389856

    Why did you resign?
  10. Standard member buffalobill
    Major Bone
    05 Dec '05 07:08
    Originally posted by yashsr
    Game 1389856

    Why did you resign?
    Think about how you'd stop Rh8.
  11. 05 Dec '05 12:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by buffalobill
    Think about how you'd stop Rh8.
    Yes exactly, its checkmate! Just didn't think of that!
  12. 05 Dec '05 13:08
    Originally posted by yashsr
    You mean Queen (9) = 2 Knights (6) and 1 bishop (3)

    I would be more than happy to lose a queen to capture 2 knights and 1 bishop of the opponent.

    I personally believe that knight is more valuable than a bishop, especially in the beginning and the mid-game.

    I would also be happy to lose a queen to capture a rook, a knight and a pawn of the opponent.

    It seems queen's value should be either 7 or 8. 9 is a bit too much.
    9 is fairly well established and accurate. The thing about 3 minor pieces for a queen is that the person with the minor pieces must coordinate them (lest the person with the Q win by tactics). Once they are coordinated, they can bring more force to bear on any particular square than the other side can defend with, hence it is often a good deal. One opening where this often happens is the Short Attack against the Pirc.
  13. Standard member buffalobill
    Major Bone
    05 Dec '05 15:32
    Originally posted by zebano
    9 is fairly well established and accurate. The thing about 3 minor pieces for a queen is that the person with the minor pieces must coordinate them (lest the person with the Q win by tactics). Once they are coordinated, they can bring more force to bear on any particular square than the other side can defend with, hence it is often a good deal. One opening where this often happens is the Short Attack against the Pirc.
    True. Merely piece counting does not establish superiority. If you've got an overwhelming material majority on the King-side (say) and your opponent is not able to move pieces over to that side of the board - such as happens if he's brought his Queen out to the Queen side, and hasn't developed the Queen bishop which then locks in his rook - then you can have overwhelming firepower centred on the King. Effectively, he would be three pieces down. You can use your material advantage then for well-timed sacrifices to bust open the King's defensive situation and mate the b*stard.
    It's about where you can bring your pieces to bear.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    05 Dec '05 20:52 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by yashsr
    You mean Queen (9) = 2 Knights (6) and 1 bishop (3)

    I would be more than happy to lose a queen to capture 2 knights and 1 bishop of the opponent.

    I personally believe that knight is more valuable than a bishop, especially in the beginning and the mid-game.

    I would also be happy to lose a queen to capture a rook, a knight and a pawn of the opponent.

    It seems queen's value should be either 7 or 8. 9 is a bit too much.
    Here is an article which gives the Queen 9.75 points and a Bishop and two Knights the same exact value. However if the Bishop pair is broken by the exchange then the three minors are worth 10.25. The specific analysis for the situation is:

    As for the fairly rare situation of three minor pieces for a queen, the statistics put the equilibrium as three minors equal queen plus half a pawn, although the sample size is below my stated minimum. Conventional master opinion actually favors the minors by a full pawn or even a bit more, though I think this is because they are usually talking about opening variations rather than endings (the minor pieces are worth relatively more with rooks on the board, in my opinion, due to the "redundancy of major pieces". Note that when talking about three minors vs. a queen, the side with the minors usually also enjoys the advantage of the bishop pair.

    This is probably the main reason that three minor pieces are generally superior to a queen; without the bishop pair they should be evenly matched in my opinion, but such cases are too rare to test this hypothesis. In the even rarer case of two rooks vs. three minor pieces, the limited statistics give the minor pieces a slight edge provided they include the bishop pair, which they usually do.

    Here also master opinion is a bit more favorable to the minor pieces. As for queen and pawns vs. rook and two minor pieces, the statistics put the fair value at 1¾ pawns, whereas conventional master thinking puts it a bit above two pawns. In general, master opinion tends to value the queen a bit lower than the statistics imply. This may be because masters are usually writing about positions where the kings are not exposed, but in actual games the imbalance often occurs with the kings wide open to checks, which of course favors the queen.


    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm