I agree. Specific situations always trump (LOL) general rules. I was at McDonalds. The ACTUAL general manager serviced me! I asked him, " you are the general manager. Does that mean that you do nothing in particular? " LOL!
The value of the Knight
Sort:
Wow how much did he charge to service you?
Was he also a knight? Is what I'm saying.
He seemed to like me. I really never thought about it. I would appreciate your insight. You seem to be an expert. Per other comments you have maid! LOL
Agreed. The other comments indicate that I have a maid.
The value of the pieces depends on the position.
The value of each pieces changes per every move made by White or Black.
Here is my estimation of the value of the pieces in the starting position:
pawn = 1
knight = 3.2
bishop = 3.33
rook = 5.06
queen = 8.9
We can see that 3 minor pieces usually overwhelm a queen.
The value of knights and bishops will vary quite a bit depending on the opening.
A "good" bishop is worth a lot more than a "bad" bishop.
A knight will quite often beat a "bad" or "slightly bad" bishop in the endgame.
Aug 10, 2015
0
#28
tkbunny wrote:
wow, decimals ...
I've got a better one
Pawns - 1
Knights - (0.8 * Number of Legal moves by the Knight) - (0.6 * Number of Legal moves by the Knight where the Knight falls without a possible recapture of a minor piece or better)
Bishops - 3 raised to the (1.2 - 0.03*Number of Pawns of your color) power.
Rooks - 3.89 + the number of open files + (0.5 * Number of Semi-Open files where the pawn that remains is your opponent's)
Queens - Negative b plus or minus the square root of b-squared minus 4ac all over 2a where A is the number of squares away from the opponent's king your queen is, b is the number of squares the Queen can currently move to legally, and c is the number of queen moves previously made in the game.
egoole wrote:
"Two knights are better than one''..... Thats all ah got say.
even this depends of position
Wow! I never thought of it like that. Because knights can jump over pieces, they have so much more potential than other pieces. Come to think of it, knights are the best piece because they are the only pieces that can be developed without ruining the initial pawn structure's flexibility. Therefore, my new chess strategy is to play 1. Nf3 2. Nc3 as white, and 1...Nf6 2...Nc6 as black, and move my knights around to the perfect positions to undermine my opponents pawn structure, which according to the OP, my opponent has no way to defend against, and use my superior pawn structure to crush my opponent in the endgame. 
Maybe you want to have a look on an article by GM Larry Kaufman which is quite interesting:
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Natural_Confidence wrote:
egoole wrote:
"Two knights are better than one''..... Thats all ah got say.
even this depends of position
After thinking about it, I have ot agree with you in theory.. but I would love to see a position where this is the case.
Two knights leads to a stalemate? Or allows the king to get checkmated when an empty square was better?
xman720 wrote:
Natural_Confidence wrote:
egoole wrote:
"Two knights are better than one''..... Thats all ah got say.
even this depends of position
After thinking about it, I have ot agree with you in theory.. but I would love to see a position where this is the case.
Two knights leads to a stalemate? Or allows the king to get checkmated when an empty square was better?
yes i guess it would be something along the lines you suggested, however i wasnt nitpicking for me it was just a metaphor that just about everything is relative...
on the other hand sometimes( often) having more material than the opponent cause people to play worse because chess is psychology
Ppl, he's only 1000 glicko
Speaking as a newbie which naturally gives me a newbie's take, I have found playing against two knights can lead to easy mistakes due to the nature of the squares they threaten. With a bishop, or even a rook, it's a fairly straight line look in any direction they have open. Not so with knights and when you have two in close proximity to each other the time it takes (me) to assess the board lengthens. Thus you can also use that against other players in certain circumstances as a bit of a psychological edge.
Perhaps this was already mentioned, but a knight is better in a closed game than a bishop. He can jump over the pieces.
Generally speaking I would take two bishops over any combination of minors plus a pawn. In single minor piece endgames sometimes I prefer knights over bishops but it depends on the bishop and the pawn structure. So, knights 3. Bishops 3 unless they are the pair, then 3.5 as trading a knight to break the pair is almost always progress.
ixtyl wrote:
Speaking as a newbie which naturally gives me a newbie's take, I have found playing against two knights can lead to easy mistakes due to the nature of the squares they threaten. With a bishop, or even a rook, it's a fairly straight line look in any direction they have open. Not so with knights and when you have two in close proximity to each other the time it takes (me) to assess the board lengthens. Thus you can also use that against other players in certain circumstances as a bit of a psychological edge.
thnx - a beautiful insight!
Lol I disagree Bob. The value of a knight depends upon his station. A knight way up the board is worth more than a bishop depending upon his stature. Saying things like "biship 3.5" ="knight 3.0" act contrary to the development of a younger player.