10509 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!
Hey! the knight can't even pass through this "barrier" or it will be captured if you try...So it's draw unless if you sacrified something...
and which do you think is the most usefull?
Nether of them in this position.
But in another position no position for example?
What do you want to say?
It's amazing how many players can overlook the obvious.
It's the queen.
But consider that it's out of commission several days a month.
It's close between shortstop and catcher.
The King's position is unique and cannot be a part of this argument, as when it is inevitably lost, the game is also lost. As an active attacking or defending piece, it is comparatively insignificant. Having said this, I don't see that it can be denied that the Queen is the most powerful and therefore valuable piece, in view of its extra mobility. The only piece which it cannot mimmick is the knight,
If you are using your king passively or insignificantly, you will lose otherwise equivalent midgame to endgame transitions. As Steinitz said, the king is a fighting piece and you should not be afraid to use it as such.
That said, clearly anything the king can do the queen can, and it doesn't go the other way. Similarly, anything a bishop or rook can do, so can a queen. Really, the most useful pieces are queen, knights, and pawns (no other piece can en passant!), and I would put the pawns as a whole before the knights because their structure is the skeleton of the game. I guess, though, it's common to say "pawns are not pieces", though, so maybe they don't apply here.
Chess for Oldtimers --- Good Idea !
by cabadenwurt a few minutes ago
by Talfan1 5 minutes ago
Is Ivanchuk a genius?
by macer75 6 minutes ago
No honor among amateurs
by Gunz-N-Guitarz 7 minutes ago
by wanmokewan 8 minutes ago
by Fromper 8 minutes ago
2/1/2015 - Mate in 2
by hw360 9 minutes ago
by TylerMTL 16 minutes ago
1/31/2015 - Ryklis-Ivasyuk, USSR 1982
by ratedover2000 20 minutes ago
by Eyechess 22 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!