tactical question
Sort:
vanjr1425
Feb 9, 2018
0
#1
I have had two recent games that generate a question. I have been in a position where my knight has triple forked the king, queen and rook. Both times if i take the queen i lose the knight, but would (at least temporarily) keep the knight if i take the rook. Point wise it actually makes sense to take the rook, but i chose to sacrifice my knight to get the queen. Is this a mistake? I know "it depends" but one was very early. Thoughts?
By my math: Q=9. R=5. N=3
So take the rook and keep the knight nets you 5 pts
Take the queen and lose the knight is 9-3=6 pts, so point-wise you are ahead, not behind by doing this
That said, it still depends.
So much for the fuzzy math schools teach these days...
So take the rook and keep the knight nets you 5 pts
Take the queen and lose the knight is 9-3=6 pts, so point-wise you are ahead, not behind by doing this
That said, it still depends.
So much for the fuzzy math schools teach these days...
Feb 9, 2018
0
#3
Im not a great player, but at least for most under 1800 losing the queen is psycholigically demoralizing. many resign at that point. A win is a win. But it depends. I had a situation where I had a royal fork and took none bc there was a checkmate elsewhere. Another thing to keep in mind number of pawns available if there are a lot of pawns on the board and that rook was sort of inactive I would grab the queen.
Feb 9, 2018
0
#4
Shock_Me wrote:
But take rook and keeping knight nets me 8 points, not 5.
By my math: Q=9. R=5. N=3
So take the rook and keep the knight nets you 5 pts
Take the queen and lose the knight is 9-3=6 pts, so point-wise you are ahead, not behind by doing this
That said, it still depends.
So much for the fuzzy math schools teach these days...
vanjr1425 wrote:
Shock_Me wrote:
By my math: Q=9. R=5. N=3
So take the rook and keep the knight nets you 5 pts
Take the queen and lose the knight is 9-3=6 pts, so point-wise you are ahead, not behind by doing this
That said, it still depends.
So much for the fuzzy math schools teach these days...
But take rook and keeping knight nets me 8 points, not 5.
What we have here is a failure to communicate...
You dont get any points for not losing a piece.
Think of it this way, you start the game with pawns and pieces worth 39 pts (8x1 pawns, 2x5 rooks, 2x3 bishops, 2x3 knights and 1x9 queen, for a total of 39)
Take his rook, now he has 34 pts. You still have 39, you are 5 pts ahead
Take his queen, lose your knight, he now has 30 pts, you have 36. You are 6 pts ahead.
If you got points for every move that didnt lose you a piece, well, you have lots of points...
Feb 9, 2018
0
#6
vanjr1425 wrote:
I have had two recent games that generate a question. I have been in a position where my knight has triple forked the king, queen and rook. Both times if i take the queen i lose the knight, but would (at least temporarily) keep the knight if i take the rook. Point wise it actually makes sense to take the rook, but i chose to sacrifice my knight to get the queen. Is this a mistake? I know "it depends" but one was very early. Thoughts?
It does NOT make sense "point wise" to take the Rook!
Using the old Fred Reinfeld values (based on Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals) a Queen is worth 9 pawn equivalents, a Rook is 5 and a Knight Is 3. So taking the Q and losing the N is worth 6 compared to just 5 by taking the R without losing the N.
In the 1990's, Larry Kaufman's celebrated study, "The Evaluation of Material Imbalances," published in Chess Life, of over 80,000,000 positions concluded the following relative values: Q = 9.75, R = 5, B = N = 3.25, P = 1, 2B's = 0.5 more than B + N.
This makes more sense and explains why the typical move of trading B + N for the f2-Pawn and the Rook behind it in a castled position is usually bad for the person giving up the B +N.
With Kaufman's numbers, it makes even more sense to take the Q and lose the N than to take the R and not lose the N. Of course, if taking the R leads to a mating net, that's a different story!
For more on that study see: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-evaluation-of-material-imbalances-by-im-larry-kaufman
Feb 11, 2018
0
#7
Thank you all for the comments.
I will tell you that I am just learning chess, but from my observations-just playing since October 2017, my entirely personal value systems is Queen, Knight, Rook, Bishop then pawn. I would rather keep my knight than rook. I find my opponents rooks significantly more dangerous than their rooks. I know I may the only one who thinks so, but that is where I am right now.
