Why is the knight only worth three pawns?

Colby-Covington

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.

Drawgood
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.
Colby-Covington
WeakLava wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:

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.

I went and changed my USCF rating to 3000. Does that mean im rated 3000?  Of course not. 

Yes, because you are acknowledging it.

This guy is offering proof, still defending the fact, that he is actually FIDE 3000 rated.🙄

knightscape007

I hereby challenge @MagnusCarlson and any other GM to a game, OTB or on chess.com or lichess.  if they accept and win I will remove 3000 from my profile, otherwise I am the GOAT

Colby-Covington
knightscape007 wrote:

I hereby challenge @MagnusCarlson and any other GM to a game, OTB or on chess.com or lichess.  if they accept and win I will remove 3000 from my profile, otherwise I am the GOAT

Let's play a 3 min game.

If I win you'll edit your profile to say FIDE 1001, deal?

knightscape007
Colby-Covington wrote:
knightscape007 wrote:

I hereby challenge @MagnusCarlson and any other GM to a game, OTB or on chess.com or lichess.  if they accept and win I will remove 3000 from my profile, otherwise I am the GOAT

Let's play a 3 min game.

If I win you'll edit your profile to say FIDE 1001, deal?

The challenge was to GMs, not patzers like you 

Colby-Covington

I'm a 1000 points above you, I think I'll manage.😌

knightscape007
gf3 wrote:

all talk

total coward

I shall make an exception to the GM rule for you, let’s see who the coward is

 

drmrboss
knightscape007 wrote:
gf3 wrote:

all talk

total coward

I shall make an exception to the GM rule for you, let’s see who the coward is

 

 

Typical response from a lower rated player. happy.png

 

When there is argument between who is a faster runner? You dont need to ask them to run a 5 hour marathon (only pro finisih in 2 h), you can see who is faster within 50 meter performance.

 

That being said " +1000 higher rated player is > 99% of  winning probablilty. No need to test a 3 year game ( 2 weeks / turn is 3 year), you can see the performance in 3 min game.

knightscape007
drmrboss wrote:
knightscape007 wrote:
gf3 wrote:

all talk

total coward

I shall make an exception to the GM rule for you, let’s see who the coward is

 

 

Typical response from a lower rated player.

 

When there is argument between who is a faster runner? You dont need to ask them to run a 5 hour marathon (only pro finisih in 2 h), you can see who is faster within 50 meter performance.

 

That being said " +1000 higher rated player is > 99% of  winning probablilty. No need to test a 3 year game ( 2 weeks / turn is 3 year), you can see the performance in 3 min game.

Since you bring up running I can run a 2h40 marathon (no jokes - I train 5+ days every week) and your example is bullsh** because I can’t sprint to save my life and would lose a 50m race to lots of non-runners my age.

 

We can reduce the time control if he likes but playing 3 min games is more a test of connection speed and luck than how well you can analyse positions.

drmrboss
knightscape007 wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
knightscape007 wrote:
gf3 wrote:

all talk

total coward

I shall make an exception to the GM rule for you, let’s see who the coward is

 

 

Typical response from a lower rated player.

 

When there is argument between who is a faster runner? You dont need to ask them to run a 5 hour marathon (only pro finisih in 2 h), you can see who is faster within 50 meter performance.

 

That being said " +1000 higher rated player is > 99% of  winning probablilty. No need to test a 3 year game ( 2 weeks / turn is 3 year), you can see the performance in 3 min game.

Since you bring up running I can run a 2h40 marathon (no jokes - I train 5+ days every week) and your example is bullsh** because I can’t sprint to save my life and would lose a 50m race to lots of non-runners my age.

 

We can reduce the time control if he likes but playing 3 min games is more a test of connection speed and luck than how well you can analyse positions.

No one was born with 2000+ rating.

 

We started with 1200 like you. We know how much hard work and hiw much experience is required from 1200 to 2000+.

 

 

If you can beat another 1200 by 75% score you become 1400 and so on. But in your case you have 50% chance of winning against 1200. 

 

It is the reasons how chess ratings are created.

knightscape007
drmrboss wrote:
knightscape007 wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
knightscape007 wrote:
gf3 wrote:

all talk

total coward

I shall make an exception to the GM rule for you, let’s see who the coward is

 

 

Typical response from a lower rated player.

 

When there is argument between who is a faster runner? You dont need to ask them to run a 5 hour marathon (only pro finisih in 2 h), you can see who is faster within 50 meter performance.

 

That being said " +1000 higher rated player is > 99% of  winning probablilty. No need to test a 3 year game ( 2 weeks / turn is 3 year), you can see the performance in 3 min game.

Since you bring up running I can run a 2h40 marathon (no jokes - I train 5+ days every week) and your example is bullsh** because I can’t sprint to save my life and would lose a 50m race to lots of non-runners my age.

 

We can reduce the time control if he likes but playing 3 min games is more a test of connection speed and luck than how well you can analyse positions.

No one was born with 2000+ rating.

 

We started with 1200 like you. We know how much hard work and hiw much experience is required from 1200 to 2000+.

 

 

If you can beat another 1200 by 75% score you become 1400 and so on. But in your case you have 50% chance of winning against 1200. 

 

It is the reasons how chess ratings are created.

Yeah but I haven’t played any serious games on this account yet, they’re mostly with @fathamster or @ratatouie where we discuss life’s meaning or games where I speedmove without thinking then normally time out

knightscape007

Ps can we stop quoting each other cumulatively- this is getting out of hand

Colby-Covington

@knightscape007

My offer stands, you may challenge me to a 3 min game at any time, but if I win you'll have to change that FIDE rating in your profile to 1001, that's my condition.

I'll even accept 1 min vs 3 min, in your favor.

knightscape007
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
knightscape007 wrote:

You are the best player I know and unquestionably 3000 FIDE if not higher

Thank you 

Colby-Covington

Funny thing is you wouldn't even be eligible to enter a FIDE tournament.

Minimum mandatory rating for participation is 1001.

knightscape007
Colby-Covington wrote:

Funny thing is you wouldn't even be eligible to enter a FIDE tournament.

Minimum mandatory rating for participation is 1001.

Never knew they used your chess.com rating


and ps I’ve only lost 2 daily games not from timeouts and those were from moving without thinking so your assessment of me is retarded

A1Winning
knightscape007 wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:

Funny thing is you wouldn't even be eligible to enter a FIDE tournament.

Minimum mandatory rating for participation is 1001.

Never knew they used your chess.com rating


and ps I’ve only lost 2 daily games not from timeouts and those were from moving without thinking so your assessment of me is retarded

@knightscape007 stop trying to defend yourself. You are wrong and we all know it. And if you want to prove that you are better than your current rating, accept the challenge as it is. 

melvinbluestone
WeakLava wrote:
AussieRookie wrote:

I always gauge the Knight as a 3.7246 and the Bishop slightly higher at 3.8374.

And we all know that once you have gained a .00000000000000000000004 advantage the game is over.

     I agree. I also noticed my king side rook is worth 5.05569, but my queen side rook is only worth 5.03477. I took the set back where I bought it and complained. The guy in the store said "Whaddya' want from me? I didn't make the damn thing. Take it up with Mr. Staunton!"

Colby-Covington

Those 0.176 points will make all the difference in @WeakLavas high level games.🤭