relationships

chess, when ranked in numerative values in relation to pieces, construes a misnomer in cohesion to the actual nature of the game.

I am american.  we are taught game theory and rivalry through mostly public and private educational instutions and bureaucratic hierarchies in addition to capitalist business models in conjunction with marketing and basic psychology.

it is simply one side of chess.  the power of the individual.  relationships, in binary, triplicate, quadrupled and so forth, reveal the motions behind the numbers.  the price of a piece is but the crest of a wave over deep ocean currents.

One must always pay attention to how pieces compliment each other from various positions on the board.  More importantly, one must study the nature of the movement of a couplet from one side of the board to the other.

a knight and a bishop

a king and a pawn

are two examples of a myriad that can compliment and defend each other as they move from space to space as a squadron bent on victory.

by victory i mean:  for the sake of the entire army; the defeat of the rival king

when pieces move together like the legs of an insect, arachnid, centipede and so forth ( diamonds, trapezoids, rectangles, squares, and all the other shapes of the 8x8 grid. ) they can achieve great things.