Chess is not mathematics

Jump to forum:
 
20th March 2009, 04:38am
#1
by dkischess
India
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 46

p = 1; N = 3; B = 3; R = 5; Q = 9;

 

but,

 Q = R + R    =>   9 = 5+5 => 9 =10

 Q = B+B+N  =>   9 = 3+3+3 => 9=9

 Q = R+B      =>   9 = 5+3    => 9=8

 R = B+P+P   =>   5 = 3+1+1 => 5=5

 R+P+P = B+N => 7=6

 R+R = B+B+N => 10=9

 

So chess is not mathematics . Then why it is tough?

20th March 2009, 04:56am
#2
by camdawg18
London England
Member Since: Apr 2008
Member Points: 40

does it have to have 5+5=10 to make it tough?  does it need math to make it tough?  I'm confused as to the point of your question.

20th March 2009, 05:02am
#3
by Gomer_Pyle
Elmira, New York United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 280

Your logic is false. Two rooks are worth more than a queen. Your equation proved that but you chose not to believe it.

Now thirty people are going to post telling you how the values of the pieces changes with the position on the board.

20th March 2009, 05:25am
#4
by jjeffrey
Kirkwood MO United States
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 48

Chess is not mathematics, but it does *involve* mathematics.  It is tough because it requires constant calculation, evaluation, and re-evaluation.  And I will be person #1 of 30 to state that the values of the pieces are constantly changing (e.g. a pawn marching down the board).

20th March 2009, 05:31am
#5
by dkischess
India
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 46

i haven't created those equation. I got those values through online sources and books . I Know value depends on position. Like N is powerful than B in closed center game, while open posiotion favours B.

 

THATS WHY I SAID "CHESS NOT MATHS"

20th March 2009, 05:33am
#6
by Gomer_Pyle
Elmira, New York United States
Member Since: Dec 2008
Member Points: 280
jjeffrey wrote:

And I will be person #1 of 30 to state that the values of the pieces are constantly changing (e.g. a pawn marching down the board).


LOL ...and I'll volunteer to be #2. Knights and bishops change values all the time depending on their location and the pawn structure.

22nd March 2009, 10:54pm
#7
by dkischess
India
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 46

.

27th August 2009, 11:54am
#8
by dkischess
India
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 46

revoked

28th August 2009, 06:17am
#9
by ivandh
GA United States
Member Since: Sep 2007
Member Points: 481

If you know value depends on position why do you use (erroneous) equations that totally ignore position?

28th August 2009, 06:33am
#10
by Shivsky
DFW United States
Member Since: Jun 2009
Member Points: 520

I believe Soltis, Kaufman and a few other GMs re-valued the pieces based on statistical analysis of millions of recorded games.

The following article will help you understand the nuances of "actual material imbalances" rather than simple value-assignment.  The numbers you quoted are usually a way for beginners to maintain a track of material.  Once you start getting better, many a piece's value becomes extraordinarily dynamic.

http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

28th August 2009, 06:34am
#11
by Nytik
Southampton United Kingdom
Member Since: May 2008
Member Points: 4519

I would think that chess is pure mathematics, but we will never figure out the true equations of a position...

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.