12535 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Hey! the knight can't even pass through this "barrier" or it will be captured if you try...So it's draw unless if you sacrified something...
and which do you think is the most usefull?
Nether of them in this position.
But in another position no position for example?
What do you want to say?
It's amazing how many players can overlook the obvious.
It's the queen.
But consider that it's out of commission several days a month.
It's close between shortstop and catcher.
The King's position is unique and cannot be a part of this argument, as when it is inevitably lost, the game is also lost. As an active attacking or defending piece, it is comparatively insignificant. Having said this, I don't see that it can be denied that the Queen is the most powerful and therefore valuable piece, in view of its extra mobility. The only piece which it cannot mimmick is the knight,
If you are using your king passively or insignificantly, you will lose otherwise equivalent midgame to endgame transitions. As Steinitz said, the king is a fighting piece and you should not be afraid to use it as such.
That said, clearly anything the king can do the queen can, and it doesn't go the other way. Similarly, anything a bishop or rook can do, so can a queen. Really, the most useful pieces are queen, knights, and pawns (no other piece can en passant!), and I would put the pawns as a whole before the knights because their structure is the skeleton of the game. I guess, though, it's common to say "pawns are not pieces", though, so maybe they don't apply here.
Tournaments on phone app?
by ijgeoffrey a few minutes ago
Wild Chess Imagery
by ChessPlayinDude47 2 minutes ago
A System for Sizing Chess Pieces and Boards (long)
by rickyro 3 minutes ago
how much is a tempo worth?
by dude667 4 minutes ago
by Morphysrevenges 6 minutes ago
Played beautifully and lost. Help!
by cats-not-knights 10 minutes ago
Your games shallowly and pessimistically analyzed by some guy.
by Diakonia 11 minutes ago
5/28/2016 - [Smyslov - Fischer, Yugoslavia 1959
by gops75 16 minutes ago
To fold, or not to fold?
by loubalch 17 minutes ago
Confusion over Board size.
by DivineDestruction 20 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!