What's a chess piece worth?

You've heard the old sayings:

1. A Knight on the sixth is worth a Rook.
2. A Pawn on the seventh is worth a Rook.
3. A Rook on the seventh is worth two in the bush.

This is what pieces are currently going for:

1. 1 pawn = 1 point.
2. 1 Knight = 3 points.
3. 1 Bishop = 3 points.
4. 1 Rook = 5 points.
5. 1 Queen = 9 points.

Sometimes depending on who you ask they are changed a bit. Some people prefer to say a Queen is worth 10 points or that a Knight is worth 2.5 points. In the old chess books they sometime listed the Bishop as 3 and 1/4 points.

But remember the old sayings... The value of chess pieces fluctuates throughout the game. Another old saying is that "It takes seven points to win an endgame." I have no idea where that came from.

Well we've all seen endgames that were won by much less than that. Sometimes it's tempo that wins and material is less important.

So take these piece values with a grain of salt and know that the most powerful piece is the one delivering mate. They were meant to be rough guidelines.

As usual: It depends on the position.

According to Dan Heisman's book "Everyone's 2nd Chess Book", recent computer analysis has shown that knights and bishops really are about equal, and they really are worth about 3.25 pawns. Also, a queen really is worth 3 minor pieces, so that makes the queen worth 9.75 pawns. Another factor that most people don't consider is that the bishop pair (having both of your bishops still on the board) is worth a .5 pawn bonus.

But as you said, the key factor is that it depends on the position. These are just statistical averages to help you get a feel for what material to trade when trading down in the direction of an endgame. Nothing less, nothing more.

--Fromper 

Yes , I recall that Bishop pair model and I always prefer the Bishop pair to the Knight pair... aw who am I foolin' Knights are so bouncey I just gotta have 'em!

Knights and bishops both have their strengths and weaknesses. Bishops are better in open positions, where their long range attacks are more useful. Knights are better in positions with locked up pawns, because they can jump around the pawns to get to the square they need. Bishops are better in endgames with pawns on opposite sides of the board, because they can quickly move from one side to the other. However, they only move on a single color, so they can't attack things that are on a square of the opposite color, whereas knights can be repositioned to attack any square.

--Fromper 

That reminds me... speaking of weird people and special chess sets why would anyone spend $10,000,000 for a chess set??? The Jewel Royale Chess Set custom made for some jewelry company.

BAH! I'm holding out for the one crafted from the bones of Morphy and Philidor.

Here is a very interesting article titled "The Evaluation of Material Imbalance" written by IM Larry Kaufman where he explains different piece situations and he has created his own set of piece values after years and years of study on this topic:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

The Kaufman values:

Pawn = 1

Knight = 3.25

Bishop = 3.25

Rook = 5

Queen = 9.75

Bishop Pair = +0.50

"[IM Larry Kaufman] has created his own set of piece values after years and years of study on this topic"

- And they're the same as Friend Fromper's Dan Heisman's Values.

"Hey Pawnshover:  Welcome back."

- His postings here are old postings.

"Every blitz player KNOWS the mules are better than the clerics in blitz !"

- In the 19th century and earlier, knight were generally preferred over bishops. I imagine this was due to the preponderance of tactics over postional considerations, the fewer endgames, and the difficulty in predicting the convoluted moves of the knight. 

Two rooks, on the seventh and eighth rank, checkmating the enemy king: ∞

In other words it is about position. Personally I think that piece values were first invented to satisfy passers-by who kept asking "What's the score?" and "Who is winning?"

"It takes seven points to win an endgame."  -- pawnshover

Who says that? It's clearly wrong. A 2-pawn edge is usually winning, and in pawnless endings an extra rook's enough. And I can't imagine anyone advocating a point system where both a rook and two pawns are worth seven points.

Counting the points values of pieces is a useful way for beginners to know the relative strengths of each piece but I would not recommend relying on it after mastering the moves and basic strategies. The "value" of a piece depends on the position and I have never liked the idea of assigning a number to it. For me, the only time I might find it at least somewhat helpful is a complicated trade of pieces but that doesn't occur in most games (in some, but it's the minority). For example, trading a queen for three minor pieces or a queen for a rook, minor piece and a pawn or two... in that situation it might be handy, I suppose, but I can't think of any other situations especially for the club/tournament player.

I read once that nights are worth more at the beginning than bishops and bishops more than knights at the end of the game.  I am a beginner to intermediate at this game but I always go after the opponents bishops early in the game. My 2 cents.