Explain again why the knight is worth more that three pawns.
White to move
Why is the knight only worth three pawns?
Sort:
What does the knight do on c8 though though? It can demonstrably be shown that black either blundered, or white had to sac a rook or a Queen Flat in order to force Nc8 to promote the pawn.
So I would say your example examplifies how good a knight in the endgame is. Your own example places knight at roughly 5 pawns.
I mean even after b8=Q, black has still really good drawing chances with the tricky horsey against White Queen. All it take s is one fork and babam! Draw! If that happen, the knight can even be said to have been worth 19 poionts in that particular game (two Qs and a pawn)
Jan 23, 2020
0
#24
Colby-Covington wrote:
@knightscape007
How are you FIDE 3000 rated?
I'm kinda blown away right now.😲
By being a genius
knightscape007 wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:
@knightscape007
How are you FIDE 3000 rated?
I'm kinda blown away right now.😲
By being a genius
Not questioning your rating, but FYI you can manually change your FIDE rating in profile. And the limit is 3000.
A1Winning wrote:
Not questioning your rating, but FYI you can manually change your FIDE rating in profile. And the limit is 3000.
Ah ok, that makes more sense, I was wondering why the rest is so ridiculous compared to that 3000.☺
Why would that be optional? You should have to verify your FIDE status first and let the system update it remotely.
Yeah. I don't know, but because its optional and not verified I don't think it counts as an official rating.
Jan 23, 2020
0
#28
the knight is worth 3 pawns is because it can jump and have 8 moves at most while pawns can only move 4 at most in one move. 90% of the time knights are useful(mid-game) while pawns are more valuable for their promotions (endgame).
the knight is equal to a bishop because a knight can't move far but can go to any square while the bishop moves far more than the knight.
Jan 23, 2020
0
#29
also knight are worth three pawns cause there are fewer knigt than pawns
Jan 23, 2020
0
#30
Rat1960 wrote:
Three pawns can attack six squares maximum (could be 4)
A knight can attack eight squares maximum (could be 2)
When I was a kid I wrote down the number of squares a knight and bishop could move to in a GM game. Then I thought oh but some of them are silly moves. Got some way into a re-write and thought, nah somebody else did this to get 3 pawns for each and went with trust.
Actually, 3 pawns could attack as little as 3!
a3/a4/a5
a3/c3/h3
d2/f2/h2
And countless other combinations.
And depending on your definition of attack, it could attack as little as 2 squares and merely protect their mates otherwise
a2/b3/a4
4xel said "I mean even after b8=Q, black has still really good drawing chances with the tricky horsey against White Queen"
In this position, among decent players, white wins 100 out of 100.
As everyone knows, in the endgame a knight facing three pawns can draw--at best! And can lose easily.
Jan 23, 2020
0
#33
Because after two or three centuries of studies, this is what has been agreed to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value
Actually, you're free to use any value that you think is appropriate. It's not a scientific fact, it's just an opinion.
#31 @ThrillerFan
Well sure, but the GM game (Bronstein v Najdorf) I used 46 years ago for square attacks did not have doubled/smashed up pawns.
Consider KN v KPPP, no way is a knight worth 3 pawns with just those six items on the board.
Jan 23, 2020
0
#35
One day all the clowns posting here will learn that those numerical values are merely for sheer beginners to have a starting template.
A knight is not worth 2 pawns, 3 pawns, 4 pawns, any pawns. It is worth whatever value the current position dictates.
A Knight could be better than a rook in one position, and worse than a pawn in another. What happens if I advance the a-pawn as Black to a3, lift the Rook to a5, move the Knight via b8-d7-b6-a8, and then play b6? I have a Knight on a8 with my own pawns on b6 and c7 and White pawns land on c4, b5, and c6. That knight is not even worth one Black pawn sitting on h7!
Now what about a White Pawn on h7 and h8 cannot be covered by Black with 2 Black Knights on b2 and b3. Give me the Pawn!
Now what about a Black Knight on a2, Black pawn on a3, White King on g1, White pawns on g2, g3, g4, g5, and g6, and a Black king on g8. Give me the Knight over the 4 pawns!
It is ALL RELATIVE!
Jan 23, 2020
0
#36
Colby-Covington wrote:
A1Winning wrote:
Not questioning your rating, but FYI you can manually change your FIDE rating in profile. And the limit is 3000.
Ah ok, that makes more sense, I was wondering why the rest is so ridiculous compared to that 3000.☺
Why would that be optional? You should have to verify your FIDE status first and let the system update it remotely.
If you need further proof this confirms it
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-does-one-confirm-ones-title-to-get-the-nm-next-to-ones-name
Jan 23, 2020
0
#37
I always gauge the Knight as a 3.7246 and the Bishop slightly higher at 3.8374.
ThrillerFan wrote:
One day all the clowns posting here will learn that those numerical values are merely for sheer beginners to have a starting template.
A knight is not worth 2 pawns, 3 pawns, 4 pawns, any pawns. It is worth whatever value the current position dictates.
A Knight could be better than a rook in one position, and worse than a pawn in another. What happens if I advance the a-pawn as Black to a3, lift the Rook to a5, move the Knight via b8-d7-b6-a8, and then play b6? I have a Knight on a8 with my own pawns on b6 and c7 and White pawns land on c4, b5, and c6. That knight is not even worth one Black pawn sitting on h7!
Now what about a White Pawn on h7 and h8 cannot be covered by Black with 2 Black Knights on b2 and b3. Give me the Pawn!
Now what about a Black Knight on a2, Black pawn on a3, White King on g1, White pawns on g2, g3, g4, g5, and g6, and a Black king on g8. Give me the Knight over the 4 pawns!
It is ALL RELATIVE!
You could form all that mess into a practical rule or just N: 3 points / B: 3 points 😌
Also you do understand, that this applies to any piece on the board, right?
In light of that it's not really a rule at all, but just a beginner's way of articulating the obvious.🙄
knightscape007 wrote:
If you need further proof this confirms it
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-does-one-confirm-ones-title-to-get-the-nm-next-to-ones-name
Stop it now, you are 1200 not FIDE 3000.🤭
Magnus Carlsen himself hasn't reached FIDE 3000, but I'm sure he'll have to face you some day to get there.
Jan 23, 2020
0
#40
Actually it is just an estimate how much value it has. There is no formal rule where you have to take into account value of any piece. It is a guideline for new players. Players who are experienced and who play more competitively don’t think about how much any piece costs at all times. They calculate their value depending on position. Which means a pawn could be top value if it means it can determine who wins or loses, or it can reduce the value of the Queen for the same reason.
The value of the pieces is relative to the position. A Knight and a Bishop are worth much more than a Rook and a Pawn in the beginning and in the middle game, but in the endgame they are even. As the game goes on, the less is the relative value of the minor pieces and the higher is the value of major pieces, pawns and king(if the king can be evaluated in such a way).