If the King was a normal piece, what would its value be?

I think 3 points

I thought it was 3.5

1 think 2.75 but Steinitz thought 4

I remember 3.5 quoted from long ago.

Assuming you could play without a king, can you force mate from any position against a lone king with a rook and knight or rook and bishop? If not then I would say a king has slightly more value than one of the minor pieces.

OK then. I've changed my mind :D

I like this logic -- but I think it doesn't work too well. King + Rook can force mate but Queen alone cannot. Is a King worth more than 4 points?

 Fair point - guess the 'value' depends on the stage of a game with the king gaining in value as the game progresses.

yeah 3-4ish but if it gets taken... alot more than all the others combined :P

About 1.5 at the start of the game to around 4.5 by the finish I think.

It moves very slowly, but in all directions. Hm...

What do you mean if the King were a normal piece? In the endgame it is very powerful. To equate it in the same manner as a knight or bishop at three points is very misleading.

If you had a King and a Knight and I had a King and a rook My king would be much more valuable than yours since it is invincible and I can still checkmate you. I guess it's all relative. If my King can assist in mating someone then it is worth more than a minor piece.

So Rich, you're equating the worth of a king to just 2 pawns? I'd take the king anyday.

 Although in general I agree with modernchess, I'd take the two pawns versus a king. All I have to do is bring my king up to support the press of the pawns and the win is easy.

But the point is... I have that king.

If there were really a king-power piece I can see some real shortcomings for it in the middle game. It would be subject to harassment by pawns and minor pieces (if the minors are indeed worth less than the king-piece), and it could only retreat slowly, offering more chances for the opponent to gain time and play off of it.

 Are we talking about a chess variant where I don't get a king? If that's the case the King to move wins the game, agreed, only if the pawns are properly located. Split pawns far enough apart can't be stopped by a lone king.

Agreed. Pointage depends on a vast range of factors, and is very hard to generalize.

 Well you missed the fact that since king is a normal piece and there is no stalemate anymore, Queen alone can kill the king.

I don't understand what you mean by a "normal" piece.  the King is a normal piece, a King, by definition, a unique piece, made unique by it's ability to move to any square around it, provided it is not lost immediately, and its value to the game - in that if you lose it, you lose the game.

   so, what is the logic involved in defining it as "not a normal piece" ?  and what is it not?

it is not a rook, obviously, nor is it a bishop nor a knight, nor a queen nor a pawn.  A king is a normal king. period.