The guard is a piece that moves and captures like a king, but isn't subject to check. It's valued at about 4 points.
How would you rate the king
Sort:
First of all the queen is worth 9, not 8. I would say it's a 2
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
The guard is a piece that moves and captures like a king, but isn't subject to check. It's valued at about 4 points.
Why is it valued at 4 points though? the king on it's own is extremely weak. I am sure it must be valued around 2 points. No way a king is more useful than a bishop
Nov 28, 2020
0
#6
It is worth game but if it wasn’t worth game then between a pawn and bishop so 2.
llama45 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
The guard is a piece that moves and captures like a king, but isn't subject to check. It's valued at about 4 points.
Why is it valued at 4 points though? the king on it's own is extremely weak. I am sure it must be valued around 2 points. No way a king is more useful than a bishop
Here's a fun exercise.
On an empty board put a knight on d4.
Now mark every square it can attack using 2 moves or less.
Do the same for a king.
You might be surprised...
Remember a bishop is faster, but it can only influence 32 squares.
edit, should be 2 move or less, I changed it
That's not the point of a knight though. Knights have range, something which a king completely lacks. Knights are great at outposts, great for creating fork threats and can cover some distance with it's range. A king is strictly only good in an endgame. Unless you value endgames more than middle game and opening, there is literally no way a king is better than a knight. It lacks range and attacking capacity, not to mention it would be a horrible defender as well, can't make use of outposts, can't create threats and many more things.
I won't trust people who "figured something out 100+ years ago", they were not exactly smart back then.
Nov 28, 2020
0
#8
Rating pieces is so context-based. In the middle game very little, in the endgame, a lot.
For that matter, rating pieces is so difficult. And it’s not linear. Being down one pawn is 1, but being down 2 pawns, especially connected ones, is not 2. It’s losing.
In an amazing game, Leela Chess Zero sacrificed a bishop on move 8 so that her pawn could take up residence on d6. She thought a pawn on move 8 was worth more than a bishop. Stockfish gladly took and thought it was winning, but that lone pawn stifled all queenside development. Stockfish didn’t realize it was losing until about 20 moves later. Honestly just an amazing game.
For that matter, rating pieces is so difficult. And it’s not linear. Being down one pawn is 1, but being down 2 pawns, especially connected ones, is not 2. It’s losing.
In an amazing game, Leela Chess Zero sacrificed a bishop on move 8 so that her pawn could take up residence on d6. She thought a pawn on move 8 was worth more than a bishop. Stockfish gladly took and thought it was winning, but that lone pawn stifled all queenside development. Stockfish didn’t realize it was losing until about 20 moves later. Honestly just an amazing game.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Rating pieces is so context-based. In the middle game very little, in the endgame, a lot.
For that matter, rating pieces is so difficult. And it’s not linear. Being down one pawn is 1, but being down 2 pawns, especially connected ones, is not 2. It’s losing.
In an amazing game, Leela Chess Zero sacrificed a bishop on move 8 so that her pawn could take up residence on d6. She thought a pawn on move 8 was worth more than a bishop. Stockfish gladly took and thought it was winning, but that lone pawn stifled all queenside development. Stockfish didn’t realize it was losing until about 20 moves later. Honestly just an amazing game.
For that matter, rating pieces is so difficult. And it’s not linear. Being down one pawn is 1, but being down 2 pawns, especially connected ones, is not 2. It’s losing.
In an amazing game, Leela Chess Zero sacrificed a bishop on move 8 so that her pawn could take up residence on d6. She thought a pawn on move 8 was worth more than a bishop. Stockfish gladly took and thought it was winning, but that lone pawn stifled all queenside development. Stockfish didn’t realize it was losing until about 20 moves later. Honestly just an amazing game.
Yes it's contextual, however i can't help but feel that knights will always be way stronger than a king. Here's an exercise, give one player 2 knights at the start and the other player two kings in place of 2 knights (replace the "king" position with a "flag" let's say)... i am pretty sure that the player with the king would sweat a lot. Knights are much faster and can generally do a lot of useful things.
Also, i am sure that a knight's ability to jump through pieces is something people take for granted in the middlegame and opening. We have gotten used to it but playing an opening with 2 kings instead of 2 knights will be hell for anyone.
llama45 wrote:
Also a value of ~4 was independently discovered by multiple people... and I even "discovered" it myself after studying endgames. I guessed between a knight and rook, looked it up, and I was right.
Eh not really... players from 1800s were not exactly great at chess lol....
Read my answer above. If i give u two kings in place of 2 knights and your opponent got 2 knights then u will be sweating a lot in the middlegame and the opening. Pretty sure if such a position is made and pieces' movement arranged the computer will give the side with the 2 knights a winning advantage right out of the opening.
llama45 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
The guard is a piece that moves and captures like a king, but isn't subject to check. It's valued at about 4 points.
Why is it valued at 4 points though? the king on it's own is extremely weak. I am sure it must be valued around 2 points. No way a king is more useful than a bishop
Here's a fun exercise.
On an empty board put a knight on d4.
Now mark every square it can attack using 2 moves or less.
Do the same for a king.
You might be surprised...
Remember a bishop is faster, but it can only influence 32 squares.
edit, should be 2 move or less, I changed it
I dont see your point, the knight can attack far more squares, far farther from it, far faster
Nov 28, 2020
0
#12
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Eh not really... players from 1800s were not exactly great at chess lol....
Yeah, I'm sure you would have no trouble beating the likes of Morphy, Steinitz or Lasker...
llama45 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Rating pieces is so context-based. In the middle game very little, in the endgame, a lot.
For that matter, rating pieces is so difficult. And it’s not linear. Being down one pawn is 1, but being down 2 pawns, especially connected ones, is not 2. It’s losing.
In an amazing game, Leela Chess Zero sacrificed a bishop on move 8 so that her pawn could take up residence on d6. She thought a pawn on move 8 was worth more than a bishop. Stockfish gladly took and thought it was winning, but that lone pawn stifled all queenside development. Stockfish didn’t realize it was losing until about 20 moves later. Honestly just an amazing game.
For that matter, rating pieces is so difficult. And it’s not linear. Being down one pawn is 1, but being down 2 pawns, especially connected ones, is not 2. It’s losing.
In an amazing game, Leela Chess Zero sacrificed a bishop on move 8 so that her pawn could take up residence on d6. She thought a pawn on move 8 was worth more than a bishop. Stockfish gladly took and thought it was winning, but that lone pawn stifled all queenside development. Stockfish didn’t realize it was losing until about 20 moves later. Honestly just an amazing game.
Yes it's contextual, however i can't help but feel that knights will always be way stronger than a king. Here's an exercise, give one player 2 knights at the start and the other player two kings in place of 2 knights (replace the "king" position with a "flag" let's say)... i am pretty sure that the player with the king would sweat a lot. Knights are much faster and can generally do a lot of useful things.
Also, i am sure that a knight's ability to jump through pieces is something people take for granted in the middlegame and opening. We have gotten used to it but playing an opening with 2 kings instead of 2 knights will be hell for anyone.
Well, early in the game a knight is worth more than a rook... that's one reason why black is winning after this sequence:
-
-
But since a rook's value naturally increases as the game goes on (and a knight's goes down) you still value rooks more than knights in most situations.
It would be the same for a "guard" as @justarandompatzer puts it (guard = piece that moves like a king). I think it makes sense that it'd be worth more than a knight. A guard is good at controlling a lot of space in an area. For example a guard on d2 protects your first 3 ranks from rook infiltration on the e file. If a guard infiltrated near your pawns, it could menace the pawn chain much better than a bishop or knight, and sometimes even better than a rook I imagine.
I looked up the guard and guards move and capture a bit differently than a king so i don't know about that. It says that it depends on the version of chess u are playing but there is an article in chess.com and according to it the guard can either be much stronger than the king in one variant or much weaker in some other variant. It doesn't exactly move like a king.
Bing55 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Eh not really... players from 1800s were not exactly great at chess lol....
Yeah, I'm sure you would have no trouble beating the likes of Morphy, Steinitz or Lasker...
Well steinitz should not be a big issue, morphy i don't know about since morphy always played against people who hung mate in one every other move so idk man. I don't know how morphy will perform against people who actually saw his tactics and didn't make horrible defensive moves + developed his pieces for him (in all of his games i have seen the opponent always, without fail, developed his pieces for him)
prawnestant wrote:
llama45 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:
The guard is a piece that moves and captures like a king, but isn't subject to check. It's valued at about 4 points.
Why is it valued at 4 points though? the king on it's own is extremely weak. I am sure it must be valued around 2 points. No way a king is more useful than a bishop
Here's a fun exercise.
On an empty board put a knight on d4.
Now mark every square it can attack using 2 moves or less.
Do the same for a king.
You might be surprised...
Remember a bishop is faster, but it can only influence 32 squares.
edit, should be 2 move or less, I changed it
I dont see your point, the knight can attack far more squares, far farther from it, far faster
I think people undervalue the "speed" aspect of a knight and also the fact that it can jump over pieces and setup attacks in a middlegame and an opening. Not having a piece which can move over it's own pieces in an opening or a middle game would be extremely hard
llama45 wrote:
I guess I thought it was obvious this only applies to endgames, but you're right, no one mentioned it yet.
As for people 100 years ago not being smart, lol. They were a hell of a lot better at chess than you.
One more big issue i have with giving the standard king more points than a knight or a bishop is the fact that it's extremely east for either a knight or a bishop to attack a king, thus creating a threat.
Imagine u have two kings and your opponent has two knights. First of all it will be hard for u to trade minor pieces to even get the desired pawn endgame where your king will shine. Next, the person with the two knights will have an advantage in that he has a piece which is more mobile plus is valued "lower", as in he can easily create threats and attacks on a king and the king will be forced to move out since u valued it "higher".
I hope you see my point. Just doesn't seem right to give a piece which cannot cover many squares and a lot of distance quickly more points than a bishop. It will be vulnerable to attack by a lower value piece and will be way easier to trap than a rook or a queen.
Just some points i thought about
llama45 wrote:
Also the knight's total is 59 and king's 49.
The knight neither attacks "far more" or "far further" so I think you didn't actually do the exercise.
what? the king can move to 24 squares and the knight can move to 35 and moving further has nothing to do with the amount of squares something attacks
Also to everyone, dont forget that when paired with its ability to jump over pieces (can't get blocked) and complex attack movement (everything else moves in the two axis directly or diagonal, knight doesnt.) that makes it incredible for forking attacks
llama45 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Bing55 wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Eh not really... players from 1800s were not exactly great at chess lol....
Yeah, I'm sure you would have no trouble beating the likes of Morphy, Steinitz or Lasker...
Well steinitz should not be a big issue, morphy i don't know about since morphy always played against people who hung mate in one every other move so idk man. I don't know how morphy will perform against people who actually saw his tactics and didn't make horrible defensive moves + developed his pieces for him (in all of his games i have seen the opponent always, without fail, developed his pieces for him)
Steinitz would probably be about FM (maybe higher), Morphy around IM if he played today, but GM level in tactical positions (fun fact he blitzed all his moves), and Lasker like a modern GM (not top GM, but still GM).
Morphy could play closed positions just fine.
You're 1400 blitz lol.
Steinitz would be FM? morphy an IM? they would be lucky to even be 2000 to be honest. Isn't steinitz famous for making 2 blunders every game?
I don't play blitz seriously. I am undoubtedly a very bad speed player. I play classical chess but in chess.com it's hard to find people for a 60+60 time control so i satisfy myself with rapid (30 mins game). I was active way back in july when i reached a peak rating of 1875 in rapid but i literally quit chess for 3-4 years and gave my account to my little brother. I am starting to come back to chess now but i only have enough time to play one game every two days 
llama45 wrote:
Just try it. Replace the two knights with a king-like piece for one side and play a game.
That's a good idea actually. I just feel that the side with the two knights will have a very strong center control compared to the side with the two kings. I don't even know what how a king will contribute to controlling the center... maybe c3 Kc2 Kd3 is how, but that's just moving the king to the center, the d pawn would have to move first,... just seems slow.
Interesting variant though, it will be very interesting 
In chess, the bishop and knight are worth 3 pawns, the rook 5, and the queen 8, but how would you rate the king as a piece? Focusing soley on the king's potential movement and ignoring the fact that the king is the most important and needs to be protected, how would you rate it purely on attacking potential and usefulness as a piece? more or less then a knight?