not king value is infinite. Who was Lasker to say such a dumb things?
Where did that logic come from?
Sort:
Nov 4, 2013
0
#24
by the way I like Peter Pratt.
| 3 | 3 | 5 | 10 | Peter Pratt | early 19th century | (Hooper & Whyld 1992:439) |
When I was a child I was told a queen worths two rooks, rook 5 and queen 10. Then sure it depends on the position but I thing it is a better estimation than 9. At least, something between 9 and 10
Lasker and I know how real masters play chess... on waffles.
Nov 4, 2013
0
#26
pdela wrote:
not king value is infinite. Who was Lasker to say such a dumb things?
The piece's fighting value differs from its loss value.
Nov 4, 2013
0
#28
Ziryab wrote:
pdela wrote:
not king value is infinite. Who was Lasker to say such a dumb things?
The piece's fighting value differs from its loss value.
good answer
Loser has to eat the waffle.
waffllemaster wrote:
Lasker and I know how real masters play chess... on waffles.
cool pic.
Nov 7, 2013
0
#31
waffllemaster wrote:
...
One time I came up with some reasoning as to why central space is more important. And I was a bit mad because I thought beginner books never explained the reasoning... flipping through a Reinfeld book I noticed he explained that reasoning and even more... it was a bit embarrassing to me that I hadn't remembered.
Uhm, well, and why is it more important exactly? Just trying to see if you have learnt it properly, that's all. 
Nov 8, 2013
0
#32
philidor_position wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
...
One time I came up with some reasoning as to why central space is more important. And I was a bit mad because I thought beginner books never explained the reasoning... flipping through a Reinfeld book I noticed he explained that reasoning and even more... it was a bit embarrassing to me that I hadn't remembered.
Uhm, well, and why is it more important exactly? Just trying to see if you have learnt it properly, that's all.
Well, you can choice not to occupy the center and still be okay in the game
Sure, the king has a fighting power too, it just has certain restrictions... like when it's trapped you lose the game
Lasker gave it a value of 4, which seems reasonable to me. After working through an endgame book I got the impression that it would be a bit better than a knight or bishop but less than a rook.
Of course even if it didn't seem reasonable to me, you should probably default to Lasker