Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Value for the King?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #41


    waffllemaster wrote:
    Sred wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
    Sred wrote:

    Well, if certain opinions are forbidden in your thread, then you should have stated this beforehand.

    Their not forbidden. It's just that you really didn't give your own opinion.

    I did. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so I'll try again:

    I really think that it doesn't make sense to assess a value to the king, because it's totally unclear what this value would mean, as long as you haven't given a procedure to use this value to evaluate a position.

    Why wouldn't that qualify as my own opinion?

    All piece values are based on mobility.  The idea that you can use this to evaluate trades is secondary.  Therefore the fact that you can't trade you king is meaningless to assigning values to pieces.

    And once you had such a value, how would you use it then?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #42


    It's good to be the king


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #43


    The King should not be used in competition =It should be protected

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #44


    Giving the king an attack rating of 4 might be a way of saying it attacks better than a knight or bishop, but worse than a rook.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #45


    Four points is out of the question. 3.5 infirm more advisable universal "fighting strength". Atleast from some proper calculation done on 10x8 board. 

    In addition 3.75 is also exaggerated. 

    Overall the value is averaging 3.35 - 3.5.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #46


    The value of King is your game. If it checkmated game is over.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #47


    I've heard anything from 3.5 - 5.

    But again, that is highly dependant on the gamestate. On a clear board the value rises, since the kings mobility increases(few/no chances to get mated) and unlike a N or a B he can guard a pawn all the way to promotion.


    Personally I think its somewhat around 4, speaking only for endgames.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #48


    It should be 4 if we talk about it's attacking range.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #49


    I have always heard that the King has no real value because it's your life.  You lose it, game over, and that in terms of its strength, it has the strength of 2 1/2 pawns in an endgame.

    Keep in mind, the strength of 2 1/2 pawns and "2.5 points" are NOT the same thing.  The whole points system is bogus, and is all based on the position.  The flaw with the point system is that it assumes nothing else is on the board.  If you have the bishop pair on a wide open board, together, they are almost worth a queen, not "6 points".  You put White pawns on b4, c3, d4, e5, and f4, and a White Bishop on b2 is worth almost NOTHING!  You have no open files, but a couple of open diagonals, and a Bishop is sometimes worth more than a Rook!

    So instead of trying to put a number of "points" on the King, consider its relative value, which again, the relative value of a King in an endgame is about that of 2 1/2 pawns in an endgame!  When they say that, I presume they meant connected pawns, not scattered pawns.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #50


  • 24 months ago · Quote · #51


    So according Lasker and Evans the K is worth about 80% of a rook.

    How do this make sense?

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #52


    That's the attack strength of the king, not the overall value.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #53


    Right. As I mentioned earlier, I said "a king-like piece", not necessarily the Kin itself.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #54


    The general consensus is 1-3-3-5-9. Those numbers listed above is outdated and based on old opinions - also they are heavily affected by Inflation.

    Again 4 points is too much. The King is worth circa 3.5 points because it can switch from white to black squares - granting the King somesort of bishop pair advantage.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #55


    Gdatum wrote:
    Again i wan to say value of king, V(k)= @ [infinity]

    /facepalm - we are discussing the fighting strength of the King, writing that the king is priceless is irrelevant for the ongoing topic. 


  • 24 months ago · Quote · #56


    You cannot really give a value for the king. If it is near to the enemy's pawns, his power is more than a minor piece's. It attacks and defends all the squares around, so it is much stronger in attacking. However, it is slow. But generally I would say 3 in the endgame.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #57


    Gdatum, if you don't understand what the adults are talking about then don't interrupt.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #58


    Gdatum: according wikipedia - "As an assessment of the king's capability as an offensive piece in the endgame, it is often considered to be slightly stronger than a bishop or knight"

    The King is better at maneuvering compared to the clumbersome knight. Bishop is only restricted to half of the available squares. 

    Most of the piece value calculations done in unorthodox chess variants display ~3.75 point value. This might be about equal in orthodox chess as well.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #59


    Gdatum wrote:
    CLINTEASTW00D wrote:
    Gdatum wrote:
    Again i wan to say value of king, V(k)= @ [infinity]

    /facepalm - we are discussing the fighting strength of the King, writing that the king is priceless is irrelevant for the ongoing topic. 


     What do u mean by fighting strength? Topic is ' value of king?'
    it's value is infinity, since it is most valuable, u can't fight with it or can't fight keeping it forward.it's irrelevant of measuring it s fighting skill. If it's fighting strength becomes so high u cant mate it even with plus queen.   it's just rules to limit king's power.
     In chess ,Most valuable piece is weak ,This is the beauty of this game and it creates the beauty of this game.
      Values are given for measuring trading surplus, king is not for trading,
    so measuring it's fighting skill is totally folish.

    Yes, I'l admit that "Value of the King?" is a bit vague, but the question is very clearly stated in the initial post ("...as an attacking piece") and somewhere along the way ("...a king-like piece).

Back to Top

Post your reply: