8502 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Listen up guys, first of all, just because my name, pic, and profile suggest a girl, don't be dumb and assume I'm not a boy.
Secondly, although the title says "too undervalued", I actually meant "too overvalued". Also anywhere I was wrong, I now stipulate "numerous" (and unspecified) conditions so that whatever I said is actually right, please respect my logical conclusions. I also extrapolate these conclusions based on my very specific examples to general chess values. If you disagree you didn't read my posts.
Also my main idea, that knigts are on par with pawns, was just a joke, can't you take a joke?
If anything else vulpes, this thread has been fun for me to follow for the loop-da-loop logic train
Thank you, wafflemaster.
Queens are 8, rooks are 4, bishops are 3, knights are 2.5, and pawns are 1.
Hold on. I didn't say anything about queens or rooks. Don't go demoting them now.
Typical girl logic.
Hey. You're talking to a boy.
Just because I act like a girl doesn't mean I am one.
A better question: why does anyone care what abritrary number is assigned to the "value" of pieces? It's amazing how much effort is expended upon assigning random numbers to pieces that tell you "how good" they are regardless of the position. It reminds me of people on the internet bragging about IQ, another favorite topic (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/any-others-with-high-iq-suck-at-chess). Piece values are a random number that mean nothing and prove nothing, as everything is relative and depends on the situation.
Yes, but earlier you said: "I'm a boy (although I wish I weren't)." I suggest, sir (or madam), that you are an impostor or double agent! (or something like that).
You are clearly bored.
Only because you're not nearly as much fun about this as I hoped you would be.
But where would you get the boredom that make you want to repeatedly comment on a forum that you don't seem to be contibuting to?
At least he makes redundant/useless topics more interesting
That took a few tries to get it to post correctly.
Interestingly, both Andy and VV appear to use the same eye shadow.
But where would you get the inspiration that make you want to creatively comment on a forum that is totally pointless ?
I don't think I had ever typed that.
Oh great, and now he's Beethoven! The worst thing about that is that it completely screws up Metastable's very funny joke in #129.
Which gambit gives you the most innitiative?
by FirebrandX a few minutes ago
WHO decides the names of chess variations
by SlimReaper99 a few minutes ago
Why lose points for stalemates?
by kco 4 minutes ago
Is the book "My System" worth getting?
by Greenmtnboy 5 minutes ago
by Moremover 6 minutes ago
Setting Engines to never resign
by ollave 8 minutes ago
Weird bugs on this site.
by Conflagration_Planet 8 minutes ago
by dylan723 16 minutes ago
Time to get 1500 rating
by tacticop 17 minutes ago
Wanted; High rated players to compete with.
by MartzVariation 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com