a bishop's worth

good topic idea my personal point scale(remember this is just my opinion)

pawn - 1 point

knight - 3 points

bishop - 3.5-4 points(depends on the point in the game, endgame worth4-4.5)

rook - 5

queen - 9

king - game over

shango7 wrote:

@ yellowmutt, I wasn't wondering if a bishop should be worth 4 points, I merely brought up a good topic you asinine glory seeker.  And as a matter of choice I'd like to end with a bishop, you pitiful mess.  This is an idea I chose to shoot past high exponents of the game, because it is a good argument.  Who knows you might learn something.  There are only stupid anwers you idiotic turd.  Only those who know much can consider trying something new, you big dummy.  only winners can say: Let me try it this way!

Why do you persist in your foolishness!? You can't bluff or lie here; your posts

are in this thread for all to read if they bother. You  have no idea of what a

bishop is worth, or any of the pieces so far as I can tell. You wrote here that the

the bishop was worth about half the value of the queen. You are a raw

beginner who thinks the books are wrong. Can't you see that the books aren't

in error, you are.

When I call you a child (for your childish stubborness and opacity) you don't make the opposite case with all your namecalling. It does tell me, though, that my sword has found its mark, when you squeal so.

OK time for your tantrum.

shango7 wrote:

But Mebeme, we just leaned that it is half the worth queen or so.  And some say queens are worth 9 points. 

Ring a bell? Ashamed? Confused?

shango7 wrote:

@ JG27Pyth: You wrote: 3 points for a B or N, is remarkably accurate...of course this value can change.  You also wrote: You can't force a king into a checkmate with two N's + K--v--K...you can force the enemy king into a checkmate with two knights + King + pawn, if the pawn is far enough from queening.

Aren't you saying right here in your own great words that the knight or knights need help?!  And not to mention some assisting situation.

And if it wasn't an intriguing question, I wouldn't have so many competent minds lending thought.  I asked this question because in my decisions I feel the bishop is nearly as powerful as the rook and half the value of the queen.  It may be foolish; but it is an idea, and I am myself when I play.

And here? Bishop almost as powerful as the rook? Yes, it is a very foolish idea.

Let go of it.

You can disagree with me at any time of course, but I'm not sure you actually did disagree with me with what you went on to say.  Material is just a part of chess.  You cant ignore tactics or positional tricks.  If you're going to get mated, then material is irrelevant. 

I agree sstteevveenn!  Thanks. I think I went over that when I spoke about the queen and knight winning against the odds.

okay, my new theory:

• bishops and knights are worth 3 pawns at beginning.
• bishops and knights get value of 3 after moving ONCE.
• .5 are added to SPECIFIC bishops and knights depending on their position on the board relating to the position of the other pawns and pieces

• example: so you can have a 2.5 bishop and a 3.0 bishop
  

Yo yellowslimeball Many say that a bishop is half the value of a qeen, none say that a knight is.  How many times do I have to say, lately I'm liking bishop play.  It is no big thing you overgrown puppy.  Some players do see the queen as nine points, damn you are a real fool.  Listen, this question is for high quality players and thinkers not for scum like you.  Some have the intelligence to separate my person from the question.  You know there is an NM on these forums who asked advice on alternatives to the Caro-Khan.  Of course a master is familiar with most opening play.  But he asked a question because he knows there is a chance that he will learn to use something knew or a hybrid of collected ideas.  All in all, he is searching for something new.  Now I don't know what btw means; but I'll use it as a BLACKMAN TOO WISE one who is too wise to keep up this redorick with somebody who wants to seem smart.  You can not dazzle me with your shotty intellect or even baffle me with your insane bullcrap.   Let go of what, some mess that is in your sorry brain.  Go to sleep puppyman.

im sorry if i offended you...

Thanks RELee1863

Mebeme that is good stuff!!

I still strongly disagree on principle.  Why dont we just go all out and say the bishop on d3 is worth 4 because it will win a pawn next move.  Bishops are worth 3 points, knights are worth 3 points.  Thus even with an opponent having a bad bishop, one cannot simply trade everything off and win the endgame, because the bishop is still on the board.  If you are spending this much time worrying about calculating values of the pieces to 2 significant figures on the fly in a game you will lose because you wont be thinking about chess.  That, and you'll do stupid things because you'll be using the wrong values.

btw, btw means "by the way". 

Also, a queen will win out against 2 bishops all the time, except for specific tactical situations where the bishops can immediately win more material (or better) to even it up (or better).  For example, if you can immediately force a checkmate with your 2 bishops, or if you can skewer or fork some more material with them.

josh waitzkin explains the value by puttig the piece in the center...the knight can controll at most 8 squares ,,, the bishop can controll 13,,, the rook 14,,,and the queen 27. with this in mind you can mathematially see that 2 rooks is stronger than a queen by a square but positioning is always most relevant to the game more than any statistic. the pawn can be the most powerful piece in the right situation, where a pinned piece is absolutely powerless.

Thanks sstteevveenn, and btw I do agree.  This is not an idea set into foreverment--it is just a small notion.  Good answers.

PhillyDan now that's what's up!!!!!!

shango7 wrote:

Yo yellowslimeball Many say that a bishop is half the value of a qeen, none say that a knight is.  How many times do I have to say, lately I'm liking bishop play.  It is no big thing you overgrown puppy.  Some players do see the queen as nine points, damn you are a real fool.  Listen, this question is for high quality players and thinkers not for scum like you.  Some have the intelligence to separate my person from the question.  You know there is an NM on these forums who asked advice on alternatives to the Caro-Khan.  Of course a master is familiar with most opening play.  But he asked a question because he knows there is a chance that he will learn to use something knew or a hybrid of collected ideas.  All in all, he is searching for something new.  Now I don't know what btw means; but I'll use it as a BLACKMAN TOO WISE one who is too wise to keep up this redorick with somebody who wants to seem smart.  You can not dazzle me with your shotty intellect or even baffle me with your insane bullcrap.   Let go of what, some mess that is in your sorry brain.  Go to sleep puppyman.

Who on earth pegs the bishop at half a queen? No one? No one. Cite a source. You are impressively dense. For all the chances you've had to just say you were wrong, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

You know, you have every right to your opinion but not to your own set of

facts. You can say that the alphabet stops at X but your ignorance doesn't give

you any special standing to not be corrected in the same forum you pronounce

such stupidities. Let go of your folly and don't return to it as dog to its vomit.

These are probably not authoritative enough because they only come from World Champions and GMs, but here goes:

World Champion Emanuel Lasker (Lasker 1947:107) gave the following values (here scaled and rounded so pawn = 1 point):
pawn = 1 (on average)
knight = 3½
bishop = 3½ (on average)
rook = 5 (on average)
queen = 8½.

However Lasker adjusts some of these depending on the starting positions, with pawns nearer the centre, and bishops/rooks on the kingside, being worth more:
centre (d/e-file) pawn = 1½ points, a/h-file pawn = ½ point
c-file bishop = 3½ points, f-file bishop = 3¾ points
a-file rook = 4½ points, h-file rook = 5¼ points.

According to Burgess, Lasker (in his book Lasker's Chess Manual) gave these relative values for the early part of the game (Burgess 2000:491):
rook pawn: ½
knight pawn: 1¼
bishop pawn: 1½
central pawn: 2
knight: 4½
queen bishop: 4½
king bishop: 5
queen rook: 6
king rook: 7
queen: 11

Grandmaster Larry Evans gives the values:
pawn = 1
knight = 3½
bishop = 3¾ [1]
rook = 5
queen = 10 (Evans 1967:73, 76).

A bishop is usually slightly more powerful than a knight, but not always – it depends on the position (Evans 1967:73, 76), (Mayer 1997:7). A chess-playing program was given the value of 3 for the knight and 3.4 for the bishop, but that difference was acknowledged to not be real (Mayer 1997:5).

Another system is used by Max Euwe and Hans Kramer in Volume 1 of their The Middlegame, with values
pawn = 1
knight = 3½
bishop = 3½
rook = 5½
queen = 10.

Bobby Fischer gave the values:
pawn = 1
knight = 3
bishop = 3¼
rook = 5
queen = 9 (Fischer, Mosenfelder & Margulies 1972:14).

An early Soviet chess program used
pawn = 1
knight = 3½
bishop = 3½
rook = 5
queen = 9½ (Soltis 2004:6).

Another popular system is
pawn = 1
knight = 3
bishop = 3
rook = 4½
queen = 9 (Soltis 2004:6).

...but naw...a bishop is still worth half a queen :)

The question is: Should a bishop be worth 4 points??  Nuff said!

shango7 wrote:

The question is: Should a bishop be worth 4 points??  Nuff said!

Still no. Just get a decent book.