With the values:
Pawn=1
Knight=3
Bishop=3
Rook=5
Queen=9
The total "value" of pieces (minus King) would be 39 to 103 - to allow for a game where one person was playing so badly that they let their opponent queen all eight Pawns; and their oponent was playing so badly (or so sadistically) that they hadn't checkmated them yet... but not badly enough to have stalemated them or got checkmated themselves. 
I have learned a lot here as I should play like a chess engine to gain points.
Is this not what they do by suggesting at times a move or many to win say 2 pawns at the cost of an impossible structure to defend as pieces and especially pawns are scattered all over the board with no back up or protection possible?
Keep playing for points and forget about position and protection of your pieces is what I read.
I prefer to consider the value of the King infinity at any move or position in the game as if mated the game is over irregardless of how many points one side has accumulted.
The value of the King never varies at any position, what varies is the potential of the other pieces as if they would not have been there on critical squares then no one would ever try to assess the value of the King rather the lethal potential of a mate. The King has no responsibility what so ever on the board only the players can reduce his action and not his value.
Some people still don't seem to understand one essential concept here: fighting value and game value are two completely different, unrelated attributes of a piece. Other attributes of a piece are its color, its style of carving, the number of squares to which it can move, its physical weight, and so on. All those are as independent of each other as fighting value and game value. Just because those two English terms happen to have the word "value" in them doesn't mean they have anything to do with each other, and in fact they don't. If you made up a variation of chess where there were no concept of checkmate, and then played to see who won the most material at the end, like Go, then the concept of game value would not even exist and it would be a very different game. That's what people are suggesting is going on in chess, but that's not what chess is about.
Here are some interesting thought experiments you could try, and HGMuller could actually generate statistics for these fighting values: (1) What if we arbitrarily shifted the game value to another piece, say the queen, or maybe the queen's rook? (2) What if the king could move 2 squares in a line instead of just 1? We could probably even write a formula to relate fighting value V(n) based on the number of squares n distant the king could move.
The value of the King is infitine and priceless. Without it there is no game.
An intersting variant is Knightmate, where the royal piece is the Knight, and you only have one:
This does affect the piece values of other pieces, although I never precisely measured them. The Rook becomes a minor piece here, as you cannot catch a bare Knight with royal Knight plus Rook. OTOH a Queen is much more dangerous, as it can force a checkmate on a Knight even without any help. The two Commoners here are definetely worth significantly less than the Bishop. We held an engine tourney for this variant once, and one of the engines had the King value set to 4, so that it usually was left with an end-game of two Commoners vs the B-pair, plus 3-4 Pawns each. It was then totally destroyed, even against nominally weaker opponents.
What I believe in is that movementwise, the king is worth about 4, since it can outmanouver a bishop, but not a rook. But gamewise, the king is worth an infinite amount, since losing the king is an automatic loss.
1 becuase if you trap the king (give checkmate) the guy who gave checkmate gets a '1'
I'm inclined to agree with Chess. com in the 'Rules & Basics' section -
Superior White Monarch
3.5 is what the chess experts say (as indicated by Eastwood). The equivalent piece (known as 'the sage' or 'the man' - depending on who you ask) which moves like a king but can be captured normally without ending the game is a knight's value. This surprised me at first - I thought it would be less valuable in practice - but my brother is obsessed with variants, and, after at least 100 games with these guys, they're definitely worth the full 3 points in a middlegame and stand superior to knights OR single bishops in the endgame.
In standard chess, however, the king gets the additional .5 - perhaps out of reverence - but I think it has more to do with the fact that the king is ALWAYS on the board.....if nothing else can be counted on, there's still a game as long as you have one king and one pawn.
I agree with that statement, some tables even go as high as 3.75 but i personally feel that the + 0.25 additional bonus is exaggerated, over the previously 0.5 plus.
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/assigning-piece-values-with-cast
In this game Stockfish sacrificed the exchange in the endgame.
It turns out that black eventually have enough compensation due to the centralized king!
4 points at the endgame
If you are asking how powerful the king is; he is regarded as slightly more powerful than three pawns. In terms of tactics though, the king transcends the point dichotomy.