hello everyone on chess.com
Recently I have been wondering why knights and bishops are worth the same shouldn't one be worth more than the other. For an example:
Here is how much each piece is at the moment:
Altogether on your side you will have 39 points
Where as if the knights was above the other it could look like the example below: (please note I only put the knight up by one point because it was just an example and it could be done with the bishop aswell)
if you did that then you would have a side worth 41 points.
What I really want to know is why did the person who made the game of chess put the knights and the bishops as the same rank.
what do you think about this point?
(I am sorry if someone has posted a topic like this one before)
Look at any of the hundred forums with this topic.
what are the names of these topic sand i did say i was sorry if any people had done this before
There is a search box for the site in the upper right. Here is one result.
Just below that is a forum search. Here is one result.
I dont know the names but I saw one as near as last night. And I didn't mean to sound accusing.
No.
"What I really want to know is why did the person who made the game of chess put the knights and the bishops as the same rank"
There's no particular person responsible for chess, and you've got it backwards. The piece values were quickly derived from practical play, after the modern moves of Knight and Bishop were already in use.
What he said. Here is an article on piece value you may find interesting.
Here is how i see it, the knight can cover every space in the board and fork many pieces at once, but must move at a slow pace, the bishop can go at a faster rate and can make pins which knights arent capable of, but are only able to cover half the board. So I prefer my knights but the truth is they are completely equal.
It always depends on the position whether a knight or a bishop is better. My advice: don't put too much faith in the point system, always take a critical look at the position itself. It can always be the exception to the rule.Sometimes the bishop is worthless, and sometimes the knight is worthless:
If the value of a piece is dependent upon the position does it follow that while the position is variable so is the value of the piece. This seems to indicate that the value of a piece may only become evident later into the game. Could this mean that a rating of a piece may be sometimes determined as to its value dependent upon the opening?
You have to realize that points are not part of the game of chess.
They were invented by people writing chess books for beginners, to explain to beginners why some trades are good and some trades are bad (e.g., in general you wouldn't want to trade a queen for two pieces).
But if you want to improve beyond the beginner level, you should use them very sparingly, they're just a very crude rule of thumb.
When trying to evaluate who is better after some trade (possibly a series of trades), you should look at the resulting position, and see how useful your knight is in that position, versus how useful his bishop is in that position (if those two pieces are left, for instance). The details of the position are the only things that actually count.
So debating whether the points usually used are perfect is missing the point. It's like going to a cycling forum proposing faster training wheels.
The point values are just general guidelines. But the values of the pieces depend on the position. Sometimes, a bishop or knight can be much better than a rook and so the opposition goes to great lengths to sacrifice an exchange.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.