ok so rook is more valuable than bishop.
interesting.... thanks for the link.
Just for curiosity, at the Evans Gambit, the Bishop values more than the Rook.
But is really a rare exception.
To be clear and precise, the relative value of a chess piece depends on the chess position. (This is a position for captivity.) A sacrifice to win the game does not consider the relative starting value of a chess piece.
Since the game constantly changes, some chess pieces become useless. Therefore, have no absolute value in a given position. I believe there are no absolute values in chess pieces, only relative ones. Computers need absolute values to calculate and this is probably why they have a hard time with chess fortresses.
A fortress relies on space control, so maybe we should think of our chess pieces with a value of how they can move around in a given position. A piece that is not mobile is not active. It might become valuable later on in the game; when there is more space and so that is why we may wish to attack them early in the game.
We win games by active pieces. Therefore, they become the most valuable pieces for that position. If we learn to use our pieces well, all that we will require are enough pieces to drive the king into a checkmating position. When a King is restricted in mobility, it may take only one check to checkmate the King. You can win numerous valuable pieces, but still lose the game. So which is more valuable? The piece you can exploit to win the game.
Since the game constantly changes, some chess pieces become useless. Therefore, have no absolute value in a given position. I believe there are no absolute values in chess pieces, only relative ones. Computers need absolute values to calculate and this is probably why they have a hard time with chess fortresses.
A fortress relies on space control, so maybe we should think of our chess pieces with a value of how they can move around in a given position. A piece that is not mobile is not active. It might become valuable later on in the game; when there is more space and so that is why we may wish to attack them early in the game.
We win games by active pieces. Therefore, they become the most valuable pieces for that position. If we learn to use our pieces well, all that we will require are enough pieces to drive the king into a checkmating position. When a King is restricted in mobility, it may take only one check to checkmate the King. You can win numerous valuable pieces, but still lose the game. So which is more valuable? The piece you can exploit to win the game.
^Very true. I had a queen in a recent game that was probably worth the same as a pawn. She was completely out of play.
That's why it's called the relative value of chess pieces. There are no absolutes. Relativism and "perspectivism" apply even to chess.
That's why it's called the relative value of chess pieces. There are no absolutes. Relativism and "perspectivism" apply even to chess.
I think a good way to compare pieces is to put them in a empty board with only the kings.
1) you can see that a single rook can force a checkmate.
2) a single bishop and a single knight can't checkmate.
3) pair of bishop can checkmate, pair of knight cannot.
4) knight and bishop can checkmate.
these results can be interpreted as:
rook>bishop>=knight ,
where the bishop is just slightly better.
1) you can see that a single rook can force a checkmate.
2) a single bishop and a single knight can't checkmate.
3) pair of bishop can checkmate, pair of knight cannot.
4) knight and bishop can checkmate.
these results can be interpreted as:
rook>bishop>=knight ,
where the bishop is just slightly better.
On the subject of knight and bishop, I think the knight was considered more powerful by Tchigorin, but subsequent grandmasters have shown the bishop to be more useful. But I don't think there is a clear distinction in every game.
A bishop with a chainsaw :)
ha ha #39 i get it
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.