Knights are better in the opening. Pawns on the seventh rank are monsters.
That's true
Exactly the opposite of what Jesus states in his original post, lol.
I meant what he said about the pawns. The knights are certainly better as the game progresses
That's an interesting way to think of things.
It's too complex for me, though. I prefer to value the pieces based on their opposing counterparts.
For example, my queen knight's value compared to my opponent's queen knight. Which piece is more valuable, given the position?
No numbers needed. It's a binary choice. Either my knight is better, or their knight is better. If theirs is better, I look to exchange. If mine is better, I look to preserve.
Etc...
Jacob Aagaard has some good insights about this in his book, "Excelling at Positional Chess".
Knights are better in the opening. Pawns on the seventh rank are monsters.
That's true
Exactly the opposite of what Jesus states in his original post, lol.
I meant what he said about the pawns. The knights are certainly better as the game progresses
You're basically saying that Kaufman and the Stockfish programmers are wrong. Good luck with that argument. You obviously enjoy your trolling, but I've reached my limit of your silliness. I'm outta here...
Knights are better in the opening. Pawns on the seventh rank are monsters.
That's true
Exactly the opposite of what Jesus states in his original post, lol.
I meant what he said about the pawns. The knights are certainly better as the game progresses
You're basically saying that Kaufman and the Stockfish programmers are wrong. Good luck with that argument. You obviously enjoy your trolling, but I've reached my limit of your silliness. I'm outta here...
Every day scientists invent new ways to see the world, revising and adding to existing theories. As the lighbulb was discovered in a shed, so might the new theory pertaining to peice value be discovered in a forum post made by a chess.com member aka me.
Ultimately, a new variant created around whoever has the most points at the end could use this new scoring system to make it more fun. I don't think this would be of much use in normal chess play though.
As space increases a knights value decreases. A pawn’s worth should be high on its start, decrease slightly if move forward one square, but otherwise should slightly increase, getting exponentially higher after the fifth rank (bonus points if it’s a passer, bonus points of its protected passer, bonus points if its endgame)
does not sound so easy, huh?
There are too many variables to calculate, too many positions possible, too many exceptions possible to assign a static value (especially if this value is fluctuating)
As space increases a knights value decreases. A pawn’s worth should be high on its start, decrease slightly if move forward one square, but otherwise should slightly increase, getting exponentially higher after the fifth rank (bonus points if it’s a passer, bonus points of its protected passer, bonus points if its endgame)
does not sound so easy, huh?
You speak of the positional scale of measurement.
I speak from a broader perspective, one that inculcates square control and peice role.
As you say, a pawn is positionally powerful on the seventh rank, but how does it get to the seventh rank unless it is seen as the most powerful on the second rank? In other words if you see your pawns as worthy of protection and not exchange, on their starting squares, then got minor peices get double protection via pawn shields, and they do the fighting. The pawns, once the minors have done the job, then cascade forward like quarterbacks hell bent on your seventh square.
As space increases a knights value decreases. A pawn’s worth should be high on its start, decrease slightly if move forward one square, but otherwise should slightly increase, getting exponentially higher after the fifth rank (bonus points if it’s a passer, bonus points of its protected passer, bonus points if its endgame)
does not sound so easy, huh?
You speak of the positional scale of measurement.
I speak from a broader perspective, one that inculcates square control and peice role.
As you say, a pawn is positionally powerful on the seventh rank, but how does it get to the seventh rank unless it is seen as the most powerful on the second rank? In other words if you see your pawns as worthy of protection and not exchange, on their starting squares, then got minor peices get double protection via pawn shields, and they do the fighting. The pawns, once the minors have done the job, then cascade forward like quarterbacks hell bent on your seventh square.
exactly, proving my point. Too many possible variables to calculate, too many different ways to view the different chess pieces for a truly accurate value to be used.
As space increases a knights value decreases. A pawn’s worth should be high on its start, decrease slightly if move forward one square, but otherwise should slightly increase, getting exponentially higher after the fifth rank (bonus points if it’s a passer, bonus points of its protected passer, bonus points if its endgame)
does not sound so easy, huh?
You speak of the positional scale of measurement.
I speak from a broader perspective, one that inculcates square control and peice role.
As you say, a pawn is positionally powerful on the seventh rank, but how does it get to the seventh rank unless it is seen as the most powerful on the second rank? In other words if you see your pawns as worthy of protection and not exchange, on their starting squares, then got minor peices get double protection via pawn shields, and they do the fighting. The pawns, once the minors have done the job, then cascade forward like quarterbacks hell bent on your seventh square.
exactly, proving my point. Too many possible variables to calculate, too many different ways to view the different chess pieces for a truly accurate value to be used.
Well, rule of the thumb applies. As a rule of the thumb, less knight activity in the opening, a grandmasters yearning. More knight activity in the endgame, a grandmasters claim to fame.
Points are just a placeholder. They generalize or specify things too much. There is no perfect medium. In fact, you shouldn't really even be using the point system. You should just judge the position. There are many types of compensation. Just leave things how it is. "Just play chess." - @Roger436
Knight: 3 point in the opening, 5 points in the middle game, 9 points in the endgame
(As space increases knight scope increases)
Pawns: 9 points on their original squares, with a decrease of one point for every square they move
(On the 7th rank, the pawns cover each other, the minor peices, as well as being inherent with various ways the pawn chain and thus the game could play out. This factor decreases the more they move)
Bishops and rooks: value depends on number of squares they are controlling that are not impeded by a pawn of their own colour
(Surely it is obvious that the strength in the rooks and bishops lies in their range. And this range increases and decreases, and so their value ought to be correspondingly fluctuating. )
The queen: Same as the bishop and the rooks, but with an emphasis or cube root of power in the endgame when it pretty much dominates the entire board.
.