Piece Value =

Number of reachable squares imo. Your mileage may vary.

Originally posted by ketchuplover
Number of reachable squares imo. Your mileage may vary.

On an empty board, rooks have the same value anywhere, say in the corner, 7 up, 7 left or right, so 14.

Bishop in corner, 7, say A1. B2, 9. c3, 11. d4, 13, e5, 13. f6, 11. g7, 9. h8, 7.

The center is where it's at, baby!

Originally posted by ketchuplover
Number of reachable squares imo. Your mileage may vary.

Number of reachable squares can vary during a game, so if you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting I agree. A rook stuck in a corner blocked by a pawn and knight has virtually no value other than being able to protect that pawn and knight.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Number of reachable squares can vary during a game, so if you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting I agree. A rook stuck in a corner blocked by a pawn and knight has virtually no value other than being able to protect that pawn and knight.

I guess that's why in Chinese Chess they invented the artillary which puts power OVER the first piece in line and attacks the NEXT piece in line which leads to all kinds of tactical moves to use or stop it, like interposing a lesser value piece between piece # 2 and #3 which would now be piece #4, thus protected from the artilliery piece. If the guy with the artillery can move an interceding piece, it puts the high value piece back under attack and so forth, fascinating piece. nothing like it in western chess,

A piece which can reach only one square and give mate on that square is pretty valuable, I reckon.

Originally posted by moonbus
A piece which can reach only one square and give mate on that square is pretty valuable, I reckon.

This situation can probably be ignored. 😛

In his explanation of the relative value of the pieces, William Steinitz linked the value of each piece to its mobility. Congratulations for coming up with this idea on your own.

Originally posted by tvochess
This situation can probably be ignored. 😛

There are several other ways in which the position of a piece can be important, though. A white knight on e3 has the same number of spaces to move to as that same knight on f6, but I'd rather have the latter. In an end game, the difference between the right and the wrong bishop can be critical, even though both have the same number of moves.
It breaks down completely for pawns. After its first move, a pawn has exactly the same number of squares to go to all through its life, but a white pawn on b3 is feeble while one on e7 is a powerhouse, potentially worth a rook..

And then, of course (and appropriately for a Steinitzian measure) it completely ignores Nimzovitsch' idea of latent power, but that's rather beyond my own level as well...

If I may summarize:
1. Putting a single piece on the board (center, edge, corner) and counting the number of squares it can move to gives a rough idea what its strength is compared to the other pieces, all things being equal.

2. All things are never equal:
a) because a piece is never alone on the board,
b) because all squares not equal (partly because there will always be other pieces on the board, but also because the 7th rank is special, the center is special, K's escape squares are special, etc.).

EDIT: It may not be immediately obvious to an absolute beginner why a R should be stronger than a B, given that both are linear movers. But if you point out to the novice that a R forms a line the opposing K cannot cross, whereas the B does not, he will have an a-ha experience. This fact about rooks and bishops is not explained solely by the number of squares each can move to, but, crucially, by the way those squares hang together in relation to how the opposing K moves. That is the sort of essential, but utterly rudimentary, insight that goes into positional judgment at higher levels of the game.

The sort of position in which a N is stronger than a B, or in which a B of one color is stronger than a B of the other color, depends on exactly this sort of insight regarding the pawn structure.