fbpx
Wikipedia

Chess piece relative value

In chess, a relative value (or point value) is a standard value conventionally assigned to each piece. Piece valuations have no role in the rules of chess but are useful as an aid to assessing a position.

The best known system assigns 1 point to a pawn, 3 points to a knight or bishop, 5 points to a rook and 9 points to a queen. However, computer studies show that this is most accurate in endgames; in middlegames, it sometimes leads to wrong conclusions. Valuation systems provide only a rough guide. In specific positions, a bishop may be more valuable than a rook, for example.

Standard valuations Edit

The following table is the most common assignment of point values.[1][2][3][4][5]

Symbol          
Piece pawn knight bishop rook queen
Value 1 3 3 5 9

The oldest derivation of the standard values is due to the Modenese School (Ercole del Rio, Giambattista Lolli, and Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani) in the 18th century[6] and is partially based on the earlier work of Pietro Carrera.[7] The value of the king is undefined as it cannot be captured, let alone traded, during the course of the game. Chess engines usually assign the king an arbitrary large value such as 200 points or more to indicate that the inevitable loss of the king due to checkmate trumps all other considerations.[8] The endgame is a different story, as there is less danger of checkmate, allowing the king to take a more active role. The king is good at attacking and defending nearby pieces and pawns. It is better at defending such pieces than the knight is, and it is better at attacking them than the bishop is.[9] Overall, this makes it more powerful than a minor piece but less powerful than a rook, so its fighting value is worth about four points.[10][11]

This system has some shortcomings. Combinations of pieces do not always equal the sum of their parts; for instance, two bishops are usually worth slightly more than a bishop plus a knight, and three minor pieces (nine points) are often slightly stronger than two rooks (ten points) or a queen (nine points).[12][13] Chess-variant theorist Betza identified the 'leveling effect', which causes reduction of the value of stronger pieces in the presence of opponent weaker pieces, due to the latter interdicting access to part of the board for the former in order to prevent the value difference from evaporating by 1-for-1 trading. This effect causes 3 queens to badly lose against 7 knights (when both start behind a wall of pawns), even though the added piece values predict that the knights player is two knights short of equality.[14] In a less exotic case it explains why trading rooks in the presence of a queen-vs-3-minors imbalance favors the queen player, as the rooks hinder the queen, but not so much the minors.

The evaluation of the pieces depends on many parameters. Edward Lasker said, "It is difficult to compare the relative value of different pieces, as so much depends on the peculiarities of the position...". Nevertheless, he said that the bishop and knight (minor pieces) are equal,[15] the rook is worth a minor piece plus one or two pawns, and the queen is worth three minor pieces or two rooks.[16] Larry Kaufman suggests the following values in the middlegame:

Symbol          
Piece pawn knight bishop rook queen
Value 1 3.5 3.5 5.25 10

The bishop pair is worth 7.5 pawns – half a pawn more than the individual values of its constituent bishops combined. (Although it would be a very theoretical situation, there is no such bonus for a pair of same-coloured bishops. Per investigations by H. G. Muller, three light-squared bishops and one dark-squared one would receive only a 0.5-point bonus, while two on each colour would receive a 1-point bonus. Thus, one could rather think of it as penalising the absence of a piece, though more imbalanced combinations like 3:0 or 4:0 were not tested.)[17] The position of the pieces also makes a significant difference, e.g. pawns near the edges are worth less than those near the centre, pawns close to promotion are worth far more, pieces controlling the centre are worth more than average, trapped pieces (such as bad bishops) are worth less, etc.

Alternative valuations Edit

Although the 1-3-3-5-9 system of point totals is the most commonly given, many other systems of valuing pieces have been proposed. Several systems have the bishop as usually being slightly more powerful than a knight.[18][19]

Note: Where a value for the king is given, this is used when considering piece development, its power in the endgame, etc.

Alternative systems, with pawn = 1
          Source Date Comment
3.1 3.3 5.0 7.9 2.2 Sarratt[verification needed] 1813 (rounded) pawns vary from 0.7 to 1.3[20]
3.05 3.50 5.48 9.94 Philidor 1817 also given by Staunton in 1847[21]
3 3 5 10 Peter Pratt early 19th century [22]
3.5 3.5 5.7 10.3 Bilguer 1843 (rounded)[22][23]
3 3 5 9–10 4 Em. Lasker 1934 [24][25]
3.5 3.5 5.5 10 Euwe 1944 [26]
3.5 3.5 5.0 8.5 4 Em. Lasker 1947 (rounded) Kingside rooks and bishops are valued more, queenside ones less[27][28]

Lasker adjusts some of these depending on the starting positions, with pawns nearer the centre, with bishops and rooks on the kingside, being worth more:

  • centre (d/e-file) pawn = 1.5, a/h-file pawn = 0.5
  • c-file bishop = 3.5, f-file bishop = 3.75
  • a-file rook = 4.5, h-file rook = 5.25[29]
3 3+ 5 9 Horowitz 1951 The bishop is "3 plus small fraction".[30][31]
3.5 3.5–3.75 5 10 4 Evans 1958 Bishop is 3.75 if in the bishop pair[32][33]
3.5 3.5 5 9.5 Styeklov (early Soviet chess program) 1961 [34][35]
3 3.25 5 9 Fischer 1972 The king's value represents its importance, not its strength.[36]
3 3 4.25 8.5 European Committee on Computer Chess, Euwe 1970s [37]
3 3.15 4.5 9 Kasparov 1986 [38]
3 3 5 9–10 Soviet chess encyclopedia 1990 A queen equals three minor pieces or two rooks.[22]
4 3.5 7 13.5 4 used by a computer 1992 Two bishops are worth more.[22]
3.20 3.33 5.10 8.80 Berliner 1999 plus adjustments for openness of position, rank & file.[39]
3.25 3.25 5 9.75 Kaufman 1999 Add 0.5 points for the bishop pair[40][41]
3.5 3.5 5.25 10 Kaufman 2011 Add 0.5 points for the bishop pair. The values given apply to the middlegame phase only.[42]
  • Kaufman, Larry (2011), The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White, New in Chess, ISBN 978-90-5691-371-7
3.5 3.5 5 9 Kurzdorfer 2003 [43]
3 3 4.5 9 another popular system 2004 [44]
2.4 4.0 6.4 10.4 3.0 Yevgeny Gik 2004 based on average mobility; Soltis pointed out problems with this type of analysis[45]
3.05 3.33 5.63 9.5 AlphaZero 2020 [1]

Larry Kaufman's 2021 system Edit

Larry Kaufman in 2021 gives a more detailed system based on his experience working with chess engines, depending on the presence or absence of queens. He uses "middlegame" to mean positions where both queens are on the board, "threshold" for positions where there is an imbalance (one queen versus none, or two queens versus one), and "endgame" for positions without queens. (Kaufman did not give the queen's value in the middlegame or endgame cases, since in these cases both sides have the same number of queens and it cancels out.)[46]

Game phase                  Comments
pawn knight bishop bishop pair bonus first rook second rook queen second queen
Middlegame 0.8 3.2 3.3 +0.3 4.7 4.5 (both sides have a queen)
Threshold 0.9 3.2 3.3 +0.4 4.8 4.9 9.4 8.7 (one queen vs. zero, or two queens vs. one)
Endgame 1.0 3.2 3.3 +0.5 5.3 5.0 (no queens)

The file of a pawn is also important, because this cannot change except by capture. According to Kaufman, the difference is small in the endgame (when queens are absent), but in the middlegame (when queens are present) the difference is substantial:[46]

Pawn values in the middlegame, centre pawn = 1
centre pawn bishop pawn knight pawn rook pawn
1 0.95 0.85 0.7

In conclusion:[46]

  • unpaired bishop is slightly stronger than knight;
  • knight is superior to three average pawns, even in the endgame (situations like three passed pawns, especially if they are connected, would be exceptions)
  • with queens on the board, knight is worth four pawns (as commented by Vladimir Kramnik for a full board);
  • the bishop pair is an advantage (as one can hide from one bishop by fixing king and pawns on the opposite colour, but not from both), and a greater one in the endgame;
  • an extra rook is helpful in the "threshold" case, but not otherwise (because two rooks fighting against a queen benefit from the ability to defend each other, but minor pieces against a rook need a rook's help more than the rook needs the help of another rook);
  • a second queen has lower value than normal.

In the endgame:[46]

  • R = B (unpaired) + 2P, and R > N + 2P (slightly); but if a rook is added on both sides, the situation favours the minor piece side
  • 2N are only trivially better than R + P in the endgame (slightly worse if there are no other pieces), but adding a rook on both sides gives the knights a big advantage
  • 2B ≈ R + 2P; adding a rook on both sides makes the bishops superior
  • R + 2B + P ≈ 2R + N

In the threshold case (queen versus other pieces):[46]

  • Q ≥ 2R with all minor pieces still on the board, but Q + P = 2R with none of them (because the queen derives more advantage from cooperating with minors than the rooks do)
  • Q > R + N (or unpaired B) + P, even if another pair of rooks is added
  • Q + minor ≈ R + 2B + P (slightly favouring the rook side)
  • 3 minors > Q, especially if the minors include the bishop pair. The difference is about a pawn if rooks are still on the board (because in this case they help the minors more than the queen); with all rooks still on the board, 2B + N > Q + P (slightly).

In the middlegame case:[46]

  • B > N (slightly)
  • N = 4P
  • The exchange is worth:
    • just under 2 pawns if it is unpaired R vs N, but less if the rook is paired, and a bit less still if the minor piece is an unpaired bishop
    • one pawn if it is paired R vs paired B
  • 2B + P = R + N with extra rooks on the board
  • 2N > R + 2P, especially with an extra pair of rooks
  • 2B = R + 3P with extra rooks on the board

The above is written for around ten pawns on the board (a normal number); the value of the rooks goes down as pawns are added, and goes up as pawns are removed.[46]

Finally, Kaufman proposes a simplified version that avoids decimals: use the traditional values P = 1, N = 3, B = 3+, and R = 5 with queens off the board, but use P = 1, N = 4, B = 4+, R = 6, Q = 11 when at least one player has a queen. The point is to show that two minor pieces equal rook and two pawns with queens on the board, but only rook and one pawn without queens.[46]

Hans Berliner's system Edit

World Correspondence Chess Champion Hans Berliner gives the following valuations, based on experience and computer experiments:

Symbol          
Piece pawn knight bishop rook queen
Value 1 3.2 3.33 5.1 8.8

There are adjustments for the rank and file of a pawn and adjustments for the pieces depending on how open or closed the position is. Bishops, rooks, and queens gain up to 10 percent more value in open positions and lose up to 20 percent in closed positions. Knights gain up to 50 percent in closed positions and lose up to 30 percent in the corners and edges of the board. The value of a good bishop may be at least 10 percent higher than that of a bad bishop.[47]

abcdefgh
8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Different types of doubled pawns (from Berliner).

There are different types of doubled pawns; see the diagram. White's doubled pawns on the b-file are the best situation in the diagram, since advancing the pawns and exchanging can get them un-doubled and mobile. The doubled b-pawn is worth 0.75 points. If the black pawn on a6 were on c6, it would not be possible to dissolve the doubled pawn, and it would be worth only 0.5 points. The doubled pawn on f2 is worth about 0.5 points. The second white pawn on the h-file is worth only 0.33 points, and additional pawns on the file would be worth only 0.2 points.[48]

Value of pawn advances (multiplier of base amount)
Rank Isolated Connected Passed Passed &
connected
4 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.55
5 1.30 1.35 1.55 2.3
6 2.1 3.5
Value of non-passed pawn in the opening
Rank a & h file b & g file c & f file d & e file
2 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.10
3 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.15
4 0.90 0.95 1.10 1.20
5 0.97 1.03 1.17 1.27
6 1.06 1.12 1.25 1.40
Value of non-passed pawn in the endgame
Rank a & h file b & g file c & f file d & e file
2 1.20 1.05 0.95 0.90
3 1.20 1.05 0.95 0.90
4 1.25 1.10 1.00 0.95
5 1.33 1.17 1.07 1.00
6 1.45 1.29 1.16 1.05

Changing valuations in the endgame Edit

As already noted when the standard values were first formulated,[49] the relative strength of the pieces will change as a game progresses to the endgame. Pawns gain value as their path towards promotion becomes clear, and strategy begins to revolve around either defending or capturing them before they can promote. Knights lose value as their unique mobility becomes a detriment to crossing an empty board. Rooks and (to a lesser extent) bishops gain value as their lines of movement and attack are less obstructed. Queens slightly lose value as their high mobility becomes less proportionally useful when there are fewer pieces to attack and defend. Some examples follow.

  • A queen versus two rooks
    • In the middlegame, they are equal
    • In the endgame, the two rooks are somewhat more powerful. With no other pieces on the board, two rooks are equal to a queen and a pawn
  • A rook versus two minor pieces
    • In the opening and middlegame, a rook and two pawns are weaker than two bishops; equal to or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight; and equal to two knights
    • In the endgame, a rook and one pawn are equal to two knights; and equal to or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight. A rook and two pawns are equal to two bishops.[50]
  • Bishops are often more powerful than rooks in the opening. Rooks are usually more powerful than bishops in the middlegame, and rooks dominate the minor pieces in the endgame.[51]
  • As the tables in Berliner's system show, the values of pawns change dramatically in the endgame. In the opening and middlegame, pawns on the central files are more valuable. In the late middlegame and endgame the situation reverses, and pawns on the wings become more valuable due to their likelihood of becoming an outside passed pawn and threatening to promote. When there is about fourteen points of material on both sides, the value of pawns on any file is about equal. After that, wing pawns become more valuable.[52]

C.J.S. Purdy gave minor pieces a value of 3+12 points in the opening and middlegame but 3 points in the endgame.[53]

Shortcomings of piece valuation systems Edit

There are shortcomings of giving each type of piece a single, static value.

Two minor pieces plus two pawns are sometimes as good as a queen. Two rooks are sometimes better than a queen and pawn.[54]

Many of the systems have a 2-point difference between the rook and a minor piece, but most theorists put that difference at about 1+12 points (see The exchange (chess) § Value of the exchange).

In some open positions, a rook plus a pair of bishops are stronger than two rooks plus a knight.[55]

Example 1 Edit

Silman, diagram 308
abcdefgh
8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
White to play

Positions in which a bishop and knight can be exchanged for a rook and pawn are fairly common (see diagram). In this position, White should not do that, e.g.:

1. Nxf7? Rxf7
2. Bxf7+ Kxf7

This seems like an even exchange (6 points for 6 points), but it is not, as two minor pieces are better than a rook and pawn in the middlegame.[56]

In most openings, two minor pieces are better than a rook and pawn and are usually at least as good as a rook and two pawns until the position is greatly simplified (i.e. late middlegame or endgame). Minor pieces get into play earlier than rooks, and they coordinate better, especially when there are many pieces and pawns on the board. On the other hand, rooks are usually blocked by pawns until later in the game.[57] Pachman also notes that the bishop pair is almost always better than a rook and pawn.[58]

Example 2 Edit

Silman, diagram 307
abcdefgh
8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Black to play

In this position, White has exchanged a queen and a pawn (10 points) for three minor pieces (9 points). White is better because three minor pieces are usually better than a queen because of their greater mobility, and Black's extra pawn is not important enough to change the situation.[59] Three minor pieces are almost as strong as two rooks.[60]

Example 3 Edit

Reshko vs. Faibisovich, 1969
abcdefgh
8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Black to play

In this position, Black is ahead in material, but White is better. White's queenside is completely defended, and Black's additional queen has no target; additionally, White is much more active than Black and can gradually build up pressure on Black's weak kingside.

See also Edit

References Edit

  1. ^ (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24–25)
  2. ^ (Seirawan & Silman 1990:40)
  3. ^ (Soltis 2004:6)
  4. ^ (Silman 1998:340)
  5. ^ (Polgar & Truong 2005:11)
  6. ^ (Lolli 1763:255)
  7. ^ (Carrera 1617:115–21)
  8. ^ (Levy & Newborn 1991:45)
  9. ^ (Ward 1996:13)
  10. ^ (Lasker 1934:73)
  11. ^ (Aagaard 2004:12)
  12. ^ (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24)
  13. ^ (Fine & Benko 2003:458, 582)
  14. ^ Charge of the Light Brigade, The Chess Variant Pages
  15. ^ This seeming paradox results from the rook and bishop having almost equal mobility (14 vs. 13 squares in the centre of the board) but the bishop being colorbound while the rook is not
  16. ^ (Lasker 1915:11)
  17. ^ H. G. Muller. "Chess with Different Armies".
  18. ^ (Evans 1958:77, 80)
  19. ^ (Mayer 1997:7)
  20. ^ pawn 2 at the start, 3.75 in the endgame; knight 9.25; bishop 9.75; rook 15; queen 23.75; king as attacking piece (in the endgame) 6.5; these values are divided by 3 and rounded
  21. ^ In the 1817 edition of Philidor's Studies of Chess, the editor (Peter Pratt) gave the same values. Howard Staunton in The Chess-Player's Handbook and a later book gave these values without explaining how they were obtained. He notes that piece values are dependent on the position and the phase of the game (the queen typically less valuable toward the endgame) (Staunton 1847, 34) (Staunton 1870, 30–31).
  22. ^ a b c d (Hooper & Whyld 1996:438–39, value of pieces)
  23. ^ Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843) gave pawn 1.5; knight 5.3; bishop 5.3; rook 8.6; queen 15.5
  24. ^ Lasker gave:
    • Knight = 3 pawns
    • Bishop = knight
    • Rook = knight plus 2 pawns
    • queen = 2 rooks = 3 knights
    • king = knight + pawn
  25. ^ (Lasker 1934:73)
  26. ^ (Euwe & Kramer 1994:11)
  27. ^ Lasker gave these relative values for the early part of the game:
  28. ^ (Burgess 2000:491)
  29. ^ (Lasker 1947:107)
  30. ^ (Horowitz 1951:11)
  31. ^ (Horowitz & Rothenberg 1963:36)
  32. ^ In his book New Ideas in Chess, Evans initially gives the bishop a value of 3.5 points (the same as a knight) but three pages later on the topic of the bishop pair states that theory says that it is actually worth about 0.25 point more.
  33. ^ (Evans 1958:77,80)
  34. ^ (Soltis 2004:6)
  35. ^ (Levy & Newborn 1991:45)
  36. ^ (Fischer, Mosenfelder & Margulies 1972:14)
  37. ^ (Brace 1977:236)
  38. ^ (Kasparov 1986:9)
  39. ^ (Berliner 1999:14–18)
  40. ^ All values rounded to the nearest 0.25 points. Kaufman elaborates about how the values of knights and rooks change, depending on the number of pawns on the board: "A further refinement would be to raise the knight's value by 0.0625(1/16) and lower the rook's value by 0.25 for each pawn above five of the side being valued, with the opposite adjustment for each pawn short of five."
  41. ^ (Kaufman 1999)
  42. ^ All values rounded to the nearest 0.25 points. Kaufman's experience in Chess engine development helped him establishing a "scientific" method in calculating the relative value of the pieces. Work based on the study of thousands of games of elite players, analysed by the Chess engines: "A further refinement would be to raise the knight's value by 0.0625(1/16) and lower the rook's value by 0.25 for each pawn above five of the side being valued, with the opposite adjustment for each pawn short of five."
  43. ^ (Kurzdorfer 2003:94)
  44. ^ (Soltis 2004:6)
  45. ^ (Soltis 2004:10–12)
  46. ^ a b c d e f g h Larry Kaufman, Chess Board Options, chapter 27
  47. ^ (Berliner 1999:14–18)
  48. ^ (Berliner 1999:18–20)
  49. ^ (Lolli 1763:255)
  50. ^ (Alburt & Krogius 2005:402–3)
  51. ^ (Seirawan 2003:ix)
  52. ^ (Berliner 1999:16–20)
  53. ^ (Purdy 2003:146, 151)
  54. ^ (Berliner 1999:13–14)
  55. ^ (Kaufeld & Kern 2011:79)
  56. ^ (Silman 1998:340–42)
  57. ^ (Watson 2006:102)
  58. ^ (Pachman 1971:11)
  59. ^ (Silman 1998:340–41)
  60. ^ (Pachman 1971:11)

Bibliography

External links Edit

  • from The Modern Chess Instructor by Wilhelm Steinitz
  • About the Values of Chess Pieces by Ralph Betza, 1996.
  • The Evaluation of Material Imbalances by Larry Kaufman
  • “The Value of the Chess Pieces” by Edward Winter

chess, piece, relative, value, chess, relative, value, point, value, standard, value, conventionally, assigned, each, piece, piece, valuations, have, role, rules, chess, useful, assessing, position, best, known, system, assigns, point, pawn, points, knight, bi. In chess a relative value or point value is a standard value conventionally assigned to each piece Piece valuations have no role in the rules of chess but are useful as an aid to assessing a position The best known system assigns 1 point to a pawn 3 points to a knight or bishop 5 points to a rook and 9 points to a queen However computer studies show that this is most accurate in endgames in middlegames it sometimes leads to wrong conclusions Valuation systems provide only a rough guide In specific positions a bishop may be more valuable than a rook for example Contents 1 Standard valuations 2 Alternative valuations 2 1 Larry Kaufman s 2021 system 2 2 Hans Berliner s system 3 Changing valuations in the endgame 4 Shortcomings of piece valuation systems 4 1 Example 1 4 2 Example 2 4 3 Example 3 5 See also 6 References 7 External linksThis article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves Standard valuations EditThe following table is the most common assignment of point values 1 2 3 4 5 Symbol nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp Piece pawn knight bishop rook queenValue 1 3 3 5 9The oldest derivation of the standard values is due to the Modenese School Ercole del Rio Giambattista Lolli and Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani in the 18th century 6 and is partially based on the earlier work of Pietro Carrera 7 The value of the king is undefined as it cannot be captured let alone traded during the course of the game Chess engines usually assign the king an arbitrary large value such as 200 points or more to indicate that the inevitable loss of the king due to checkmate trumps all other considerations 8 The endgame is a different story as there is less danger of checkmate allowing the king to take a more active role The king is good at attacking and defending nearby pieces and pawns It is better at defending such pieces than the knight is and it is better at attacking them than the bishop is 9 Overall this makes it more powerful than a minor piece but less powerful than a rook so its fighting value is worth about four points 10 11 This system has some shortcomings Combinations of pieces do not always equal the sum of their parts for instance two bishops are usually worth slightly more than a bishop plus a knight and three minor pieces nine points are often slightly stronger than two rooks ten points or a queen nine points 12 13 Chess variant theorist Betza identified the leveling effect which causes reduction of the value of stronger pieces in the presence of opponent weaker pieces due to the latter interdicting access to part of the board for the former in order to prevent the value difference from evaporating by 1 for 1 trading This effect causes 3 queens to badly lose against 7 knights when both start behind a wall of pawns even though the added piece values predict that the knights player is two knights short of equality 14 In a less exotic case it explains why trading rooks in the presence of a queen vs 3 minors imbalance favors the queen player as the rooks hinder the queen but not so much the minors The evaluation of the pieces depends on many parameters Edward Lasker said It is difficult to compare the relative value of different pieces as so much depends on the peculiarities of the position Nevertheless he said that the bishop and knight minor pieces are equal 15 the rook is worth a minor piece plus one or two pawns and the queen is worth three minor pieces or two rooks 16 Larry Kaufman suggests the following values in the middlegame Symbol nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp Piece pawn knight bishop rook queenValue 1 3 5 3 5 5 25 10The bishop pair is worth 7 5 pawns half a pawn more than the individual values of its constituent bishops combined Although it would be a very theoretical situation there is no such bonus for a pair of same coloured bishops Per investigations by H G Muller three light squared bishops and one dark squared one would receive only a 0 5 point bonus while two on each colour would receive a 1 point bonus Thus one could rather think of it as penalising the absence of a piece though more imbalanced combinations like 3 0 or 4 0 were not tested 17 The position of the pieces also makes a significant difference e g pawns near the edges are worth less than those near the centre pawns close to promotion are worth far more pieces controlling the centre are worth more than average trapped pieces such as bad bishops are worth less etc Alternative valuations EditAlthough the 1 3 3 5 9 system of point totals is the most commonly given many other systems of valuing pieces have been proposed Several systems have the bishop as usually being slightly more powerful than a knight 18 19 Note Where a value for the king is given this is used when considering piece development its power in the endgame etc Alternative systems with pawn 1 nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp Source Date Comment3 1 3 3 5 0 7 9 2 2 Sarratt verification needed 1813 rounded pawns vary from 0 7 to 1 3 20 3 05 3 50 5 48 9 94 Philidor 1817 also given by Staunton in 1847 21 3 3 5 10 Peter Pratt early 19th century 22 3 5 3 5 5 7 10 3 Bilguer 1843 rounded 22 23 3 3 5 9 10 4 Em Lasker 1934 24 25 3 5 3 5 5 5 10 Euwe 1944 26 3 5 3 5 5 0 8 5 4 Em Lasker 1947 rounded Kingside rooks and bishops are valued more queenside ones less 27 28 Lasker adjusts some of these depending on the starting positions with pawns nearer the centre with bishops and rooks on the kingside being worth more centre d e file pawn 1 5 a h file pawn 0 5 c file bishop 3 5 f file bishop 3 75 a file rook 4 5 h file rook 5 25 29 3 3 5 9 Horowitz 1951 The bishop is 3 plus small fraction 30 31 3 5 3 5 3 75 5 10 4 Evans 1958 Bishop is 3 75 if in the bishop pair 32 33 3 5 3 5 5 9 5 Styeklov early Soviet chess program 1961 34 35 3 3 25 5 9 Fischer 1972 The king s value represents its importance not its strength 36 3 3 4 25 8 5 European Committee on Computer Chess Euwe 1970s 37 3 3 15 4 5 9 Kasparov 1986 38 3 3 5 9 10 Soviet chess encyclopedia 1990 A queen equals three minor pieces or two rooks 22 4 3 5 7 13 5 4 used by a computer 1992 Two bishops are worth more 22 3 20 3 33 5 10 8 80 Berliner 1999 plus adjustments for openness of position rank amp file 39 3 25 3 25 5 9 75 Kaufman 1999 Add 0 5 points for the bishop pair 40 41 3 5 3 5 5 25 10 Kaufman 2011 Add 0 5 points for the bishop pair The values given apply to the middlegame phase only 42 Kaufman Larry 2011 The Kaufman Repertoire for Black amp White New in Chess ISBN 978 90 5691 371 73 5 3 5 5 9 Kurzdorfer 2003 43 3 3 4 5 9 another popular system 2004 44 2 4 4 0 6 4 10 4 3 0 Yevgeny Gik 2004 based on average mobility Soltis pointed out problems with this type of analysis 45 3 05 3 33 5 63 9 5 AlphaZero 2020 1 Larry Kaufman s 2021 system Edit Larry Kaufman in 2021 gives a more detailed system based on his experience working with chess engines depending on the presence or absence of queens He uses middlegame to mean positions where both queens are on the board threshold for positions where there is an imbalance one queen versus none or two queens versus one and endgame for positions without queens Kaufman did not give the queen s value in the middlegame or endgame cases since in these cases both sides have the same number of queens and it cancels out 46 Game phase nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp Commentspawn knight bishop bishop pair bonus first rook second rook queen second queenMiddlegame 0 8 3 2 3 3 0 3 4 7 4 5 both sides have a queen Threshold 0 9 3 2 3 3 0 4 4 8 4 9 9 4 8 7 one queen vs zero or two queens vs one Endgame 1 0 3 2 3 3 0 5 5 3 5 0 no queens The file of a pawn is also important because this cannot change except by capture According to Kaufman the difference is small in the endgame when queens are absent but in the middlegame when queens are present the difference is substantial 46 Pawn values in the middlegame centre pawn 1 centre pawn bishop pawn knight pawn rook pawn1 0 95 0 85 0 7In conclusion 46 unpaired bishop is slightly stronger than knight knight is superior to three average pawns even in the endgame situations like three passed pawns especially if they are connected would be exceptions with queens on the board knight is worth four pawns as commented by Vladimir Kramnik for a full board the bishop pair is an advantage as one can hide from one bishop by fixing king and pawns on the opposite colour but not from both and a greater one in the endgame an extra rook is helpful in the threshold case but not otherwise because two rooks fighting against a queen benefit from the ability to defend each other but minor pieces against a rook need a rook s help more than the rook needs the help of another rook a second queen has lower value than normal In the endgame 46 R B unpaired 2P and R gt N 2P slightly but if a rook is added on both sides the situation favours the minor piece side 2N are only trivially better than R P in the endgame slightly worse if there are no other pieces but adding a rook on both sides gives the knights a big advantage 2B R 2P adding a rook on both sides makes the bishops superior R 2B P 2R NIn the threshold case queen versus other pieces 46 Q 2R with all minor pieces still on the board but Q P 2R with none of them because the queen derives more advantage from cooperating with minors than the rooks do Q gt R N or unpaired B P even if another pair of rooks is added Q minor R 2B P slightly favouring the rook side 3 minors gt Q especially if the minors include the bishop pair The difference is about a pawn if rooks are still on the board because in this case they help the minors more than the queen with all rooks still on the board 2B N gt Q P slightly In the middlegame case 46 B gt N slightly N 4P The exchange is worth just under 2 pawns if it is unpaired R vs N but less if the rook is paired and a bit less still if the minor piece is an unpaired bishop one pawn if it is paired R vs paired B 2B P R N with extra rooks on the board 2N gt R 2P especially with an extra pair of rooks 2B R 3P with extra rooks on the boardThe above is written for around ten pawns on the board a normal number the value of the rooks goes down as pawns are added and goes up as pawns are removed 46 Finally Kaufman proposes a simplified version that avoids decimals use the traditional values P 1 N 3 B 3 and R 5 with queens off the board but use P 1 N 4 B 4 R 6 Q 11 when at least one player has a queen The point is to show that two minor pieces equal rook and two pawns with queens on the board but only rook and one pawn without queens 46 Hans Berliner s system Edit World Correspondence Chess Champion Hans Berliner gives the following valuations based on experience and computer experiments Symbol nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp Piece pawn knight bishop rook queenValue 1 3 2 3 33 5 1 8 8There are adjustments for the rank and file of a pawn and adjustments for the pieces depending on how open or closed the position is Bishops rooks and queens gain up to 10 percent more value in open positions and lose up to 20 percent in closed positions Knights gain up to 50 percent in closed positions and lose up to 30 percent in the corners and edges of the board The value of a good bishop may be at least 10 percent higher than that of a bad bishop 47 abcdefgh8 nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 877665544332211abcdefghDifferent types of doubled pawns from Berliner There are different types of doubled pawns see the diagram White s doubled pawns on the b file are the best situation in the diagram since advancing the pawns and exchanging can get them un doubled and mobile The doubled b pawn is worth 0 75 points If the black pawn on a6 were on c6 it would not be possible to dissolve the doubled pawn and it would be worth only 0 5 points The doubled pawn on f2 is worth about 0 5 points The second white pawn on the h file is worth only 0 33 points and additional pawns on the file would be worth only 0 2 points 48 Value of pawn advances multiplier of base amount Rank Isolated Connected Passed Passed amp connected4 1 05 1 15 1 30 1 555 1 30 1 35 1 55 2 36 2 1 3 5Value of non passed pawn in the opening Rank a amp h file b amp g file c amp f file d amp e file2 0 90 0 95 1 05 1 103 0 90 0 95 1 05 1 154 0 90 0 95 1 10 1 205 0 97 1 03 1 17 1 276 1 06 1 12 1 25 1 40 Value of non passed pawn in the endgame Rank a amp h file b amp g file c amp f file d amp e file2 1 20 1 05 0 95 0 903 1 20 1 05 0 95 0 904 1 25 1 10 1 00 0 955 1 33 1 17 1 07 1 006 1 45 1 29 1 16 1 05Changing valuations in the endgame EditAs already noted when the standard values were first formulated 49 the relative strength of the pieces will change as a game progresses to the endgame Pawns gain value as their path towards promotion becomes clear and strategy begins to revolve around either defending or capturing them before they can promote Knights lose value as their unique mobility becomes a detriment to crossing an empty board Rooks and to a lesser extent bishops gain value as their lines of movement and attack are less obstructed Queens slightly lose value as their high mobility becomes less proportionally useful when there are fewer pieces to attack and defend Some examples follow A queen versus two rooks In the middlegame they are equal In the endgame the two rooks are somewhat more powerful With no other pieces on the board two rooks are equal to a queen and a pawn A rook versus two minor pieces In the opening and middlegame a rook and two pawns are weaker than two bishops equal to or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight and equal to two knights In the endgame a rook and one pawn are equal to two knights and equal to or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight A rook and two pawns are equal to two bishops 50 Bishops are often more powerful than rooks in the opening Rooks are usually more powerful than bishops in the middlegame and rooks dominate the minor pieces in the endgame 51 As the tables in Berliner s system show the values of pawns change dramatically in the endgame In the opening and middlegame pawns on the central files are more valuable In the late middlegame and endgame the situation reverses and pawns on the wings become more valuable due to their likelihood of becoming an outside passed pawn and threatening to promote When there is about fourteen points of material on both sides the value of pawns on any file is about equal After that wing pawns become more valuable 52 C J S Purdy gave minor pieces a value of 3 1 2 points in the opening and middlegame but 3 points in the endgame 53 Shortcomings of piece valuation systems EditThere are shortcomings of giving each type of piece a single static value Two minor pieces plus two pawns are sometimes as good as a queen Two rooks are sometimes better than a queen and pawn 54 Many of the systems have a 2 point difference between the rook and a minor piece but most theorists put that difference at about 1 1 2 points see The exchange chess Value of the exchange In some open positions a rook plus a pair of bishops are stronger than two rooks plus a knight 55 Example 1 Edit Silman diagram 308abcdefgh8 nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 877665544332211abcdefghWhite to play Positions in which a bishop and knight can be exchanged for a rook and pawn are fairly common see diagram In this position White should not do that e g 1 Nxf7 Rxf7 2 Bxf7 Kxf7This seems like an even exchange 6 points for 6 points but it is not as two minor pieces are better than a rook and pawn in the middlegame 56 In most openings two minor pieces are better than a rook and pawn and are usually at least as good as a rook and two pawns until the position is greatly simplified i e late middlegame or endgame Minor pieces get into play earlier than rooks and they coordinate better especially when there are many pieces and pawns on the board On the other hand rooks are usually blocked by pawns until later in the game 57 Pachman also notes that the bishop pair is almost always better than a rook and pawn 58 Example 2 Edit Silman diagram 307abcdefgh8 nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 877665544332211abcdefghBlack to play In this position White has exchanged a queen and a pawn 10 points for three minor pieces 9 points White is better because three minor pieces are usually better than a queen because of their greater mobility and Black s extra pawn is not important enough to change the situation 59 Three minor pieces are almost as strong as two rooks 60 Example 3 Edit Reshko vs Faibisovich 1969abcdefgh8 nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 877665544332211abcdefghBlack to play In this position Black is ahead in material but White is better White s queenside is completely defended and Black s additional queen has no target additionally White is much more active than Black and can gradually build up pressure on Black s weak kingside See also EditChess endgame has material which justifies the common valuation system Compensation chess Evaluation function The exchange chess Value of the exchange discusses the difference between a rook and a minor pieceReferences Edit Capablanca amp de Firmian 2006 24 25 Seirawan amp Silman 1990 40 Soltis 2004 6 Silman 1998 340 Polgar amp Truong 2005 11 Lolli 1763 255 Carrera 1617 115 21 Levy amp Newborn 1991 45 Ward 1996 13 Lasker 1934 73 Aagaard 2004 12 Capablanca amp de Firmian 2006 24 Fine amp Benko 2003 458 582 Charge of the Light Brigade The Chess Variant Pages This seeming paradox results from the rook and bishop having almost equal mobility 14 vs 13 squares in the centre of the board but the bishop being colorbound while the rook is not Lasker 1915 11 H G Muller Chess with Different Armies Evans 1958 77 80 Mayer 1997 7 pawn 2 at the start 3 75 in the endgame knight 9 25 bishop 9 75 rook 15 queen 23 75 king as attacking piece in the endgame 6 5 these values are divided by 3 and rounded In the 1817 edition of Philidor s Studies of Chess the editor Peter Pratt gave the same values Howard Staunton in The Chess Player s Handbook and a later book gave these values without explaining how they were obtained He notes that piece values are dependent on the position and the phase of the game the queen typically less valuable toward the endgame Staunton 1847 34 Staunton 1870 30 31 a b c d Hooper amp Whyld 1996 438 39 value of pieces Handbuch des Schachspiels 1843 gave pawn 1 5 knight 5 3 bishop 5 3 rook 8 6 queen 15 5 Lasker gave Knight 3 pawns Bishop knight Rook knight plus 2 pawns queen 2 rooks 3 knights king knight pawn Lasker 1934 73 Euwe amp Kramer 1994 11 Lasker gave these relative values for the early part of the game rook pawn 0 5 knight pawn 1 25 bishop pawn 1 5 central pawn 2 knight 4 5 queen bishop 4 5 king bishop 5 queen rook 6 king rook 7 queen 11 Burgess 2000 491 Lasker 1947 107 Horowitz 1951 11 Horowitz amp Rothenberg 1963 36 In his book New Ideas in Chess Evans initially gives the bishop a value of 3 5 points the same as a knight but three pages later on the topic of the bishop pair states that theory says that it is actually worth about 0 25 point more Evans 1958 77 80 Soltis 2004 6 Levy amp Newborn 1991 45 Fischer Mosenfelder amp Margulies 1972 14 Brace 1977 236 Kasparov 1986 9 Berliner 1999 14 18 All values rounded to the nearest 0 25 points Kaufman elaborates about how the values of knights and rooks change depending on the number of pawns on the board A further refinement would be to raise the knight s value by 0 0625 1 16 and lower the rook s value by 0 25 for each pawn above five of the side being valued with the opposite adjustment for each pawn short of five Kaufman 1999 All values rounded to the nearest 0 25 points Kaufman s experience in Chess engine development helped him establishing a scientific method in calculating the relative value of the pieces Work based on the study of thousands of games of elite players analysed by the Chess engines A further refinement would be to raise the knight s value by 0 0625 1 16 and lower the rook s value by 0 25 for each pawn above five of the side being valued with the opposite adjustment for each pawn short of five Kurzdorfer 2003 94 Soltis 2004 6 Soltis 2004 10 12 a b c d e f g h Larry Kaufman Chess Board Options chapter 27 Berliner 1999 14 18 Berliner 1999 18 20 Lolli 1763 255 Alburt amp Krogius 2005 402 3 Seirawan 2003 ix Berliner 1999 16 20 Purdy 2003 146 151 Berliner 1999 13 14 Kaufeld amp Kern 2011 79 Silman 1998 340 42 Watson 2006 102 Pachman 1971 11 Silman 1998 340 41 Pachman 1971 11 Bibliography Aagaard Jacob 2004 Excelling at Technical Chess Everyman Chess ISBN 978 1 85744 364 6 Alburt Lev Krogius Nikolai 2005 Just the Facts Winning Endgame Knowledge in One Volume 2nd ed Chess Information and Research Center distributed by W W Norton ISBN 1 889323 15 2 Berliner Hans 1999 The System A World Champion s Approach to Chess Gambit Publications ISBN 1 901983 10 2 Burgess Graham 2000 The Mammoth Book of Chess 2nd ed Carroll amp Graf ISBN 978 0 7867 0725 6 Brace Edward 1977 An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess Craftwell ISBN 1 55521 394 4 Capablanca Jose de Firmian Nick 2006 Chess Fundamentals Completely Revised and Updated for the 21st century Random House ISBN 0 8129 3681 7 Carrera Pietro 1617 Il Gioco degli Scacchi Militello Giovanni de Roffi Euwe Max Kramer Hans 1994 1944 The Middlegame vol 1 Hays ISBN 978 1 880673 95 9 Evans Larry 1958 New Ideas in Chess Pitman 1984 Dover edition ISBN 0 486 28305 4 Fine Reuben Benko Pal 2003 1941 Basic Chess Endings McKay ISBN 0 8129 3493 8 Fischer Bobby Mosenfelder Donn Margulies Stuart 1972 Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess Bantam Books ISBN 0 553 26315 3 Hooper David Whyld Kenneth 1996 First pub 1992 The Oxford Companion to Chess 2nd ed Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 280049 3 Horowitz I A 1951 How to Win in the Chess Openings Cornerstone Library Horowitz I A Rothenberg P L 1963 The Complete Book of Chess Collier Kasparov Gary 1986 Kasparov Teaches Chess Batsford ISBN 0 7134 55268 Kaufman Larry March 1999 The Evaluation of Material Imbalances Chess Life archived from the original on 2006 06 29 retrieved 2006 06 21 Kaufeld Jurgen Kern Guido 2011 Grandmaster Chess Strategy What amateurs can learn from Ulf Andersson s positional masterpieces New in Chess ISBN 978 90 5691 346 5 Kurzdorfer Peter 2003 The Everything Chess Basics Book Adams Media ISBN 978 1 58062 586 9 Lasker Edward 1915 Chess Strategy Dover 1959 reprint ISBN 0 486 20528 2 Lasker Emanuel 1934 Lasker s Chess Primer Billings 1988 reprint ISBN 0 7134 6241 8 Lasker Emanuel 1947 Lasker s Manual of Chess Dover Publications 1960 reprint ISBN 0 486 20640 8 Levy David Newborn Monty 1991 How Computers Play Chess Computer Science Press ISBN 0 7167 8121 2 Lolli Giambatista 1763 Osservazioni teorico pratiche sopra il giuoco degli scacchi Bologna Stamperia di S Tommaso D Aquino Mayer Steve 1997 Bishop versus Knight The Verdict Batsford ISBN 1 879479 73 7 Pachman Ludek 1971 Modern Chess Strategy Dover ISBN 978 0 486 20290 7 Polgar Susan Truong Paul 2005 A World Champion s Guide to Chess Random House ISBN 978 0 8129 3653 7 Purdy C J S 2003 C J S Purdy on the Endgame Thinker s Press ISBN 978 1 888710 03 8 Seirawan Yasser Silman Jeremy 1990 Play Winning Chess Microsoft Press ISBN 1 55615 271 X Seirawan Yasser 2003 Winning Chess Endings Everyman Chess ISBN 1 85744 348 9 Silman Jeremy 1998 The Complete Book of Chess Strategy Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z Siles Press ISBN 978 1 890085 01 8 Soltis Andy 2004 Rethinking the Chess Pieces Batsford ISBN 0 7134 8904 9 Staunton Howard 1847 The Chess Player s Handbook Henry G Bohn Staunton Howard 1870 The Blue Book of Chess Teaching the Rudiments of the Game and Giving an Analysis of All the Recognized Openings Porter amp Coates Ward Chris 1996 Endgame Play Batsford ISBN 0 7134 7920 5 Watson John 2006 Mastering the Chess Openings vol 1 Gambit ISBN 978 1 904600 60 2External links EditRelative Value of Chess Pieces Relative Value of Pieces and Principles of Play from The Modern Chess Instructor by Wilhelm Steinitz About the Values of Chess Pieces by Ralph Betza 1996 The Evaluation of Material Imbalances by Larry Kaufman The Value of the Chess Pieces by Edward Winter Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Chess piece relative value amp oldid 1179600415, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.