Chess piece relative value


Chess piece relative value
Chess qll45.svg Chess rll45.svg Chess bll45.svg Chess nll45.svg Chess pll45.svg

In chess, the chess piece relative value system conventionally assigns a point value to each piece when assessing its relative strength in potential exchanges. These values are used as a heuristic that helps determine how valuable a piece is strategically. They play no formal role in the game but are useful to players, and are also used in computer chess to help the computer evaluate positions.

Calculations of the value of pieces provide only a rough idea of the state of play. The exact piece values will depend on the game situation, and can differ considerably from those given here. In some positions, a well-placed piece might be much more valuable than indicated by heuristics, while a badly-placed piece may be completely trapped and, thus, almost worthless.

Valuations almost always assign the value 1 point to pawns (typically as the average value of a pawn in the starting position). Computer programs often represent the values of pieces and positions in terms of 'centipawns'(cp), where 100 cp = 1 pawn, which allows strategic features of the position, worth less than a single pawn, to be evaluated without requiring fractions.

Edward Lasker said "It is difficult to compare the relative value of different pieces, as so much depends on the peculiarities of the position...". Nevertheless, he said that bishops and knights (minor pieces) were equal, rooks are worth a minor piece plus one or two pawns, and a queen is worth three minor pieces or two rooks (Lasker 1915:11).

Contents


Standard valuations

The following is the most common assignment of point values (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24–25), (Soltis 2004:6), (Silman 1998:340), (Polgar & Truong 2005:11).

Pieces Symbol Value
pawn Chess plt45.svg 1
knight Chess nlt45.svg 3
bishop Chess blt45.svg 3
rook Chess rlt45.svg 5
queen Chess qlt45.svg 9

The oldest derivation of the standard values is due to the Modenese School (Ercole del Rio, Giambattista Lolli, and Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani) in the 18th century (Lolli 1763:255) and is partially based on the earlier work of Pietro Carrera (Carrera 1617:115–21). The value of the king is undefined as it cannot be captured, let alone traded, during the course of the game. Some early computer chess programs gave the king an arbitrary large value (such as 200 points or 1,000,000,000 points) to indicate that the inevitable loss of the king due to checkmate trumps all other considerations (Levy & Newborn 1991:45). In the endgame, when there is little danger of checkmate, the fighting value of the king is about four points (Lasker 1934:73). The king is good at attacking and defending nearby pieces and pawns. It is better at defending such pieces than the knight is, and it is better at attacking them than the bishop is (Ward 1996:13).

This system has some shortcomings. For instance, three minor pieces (nine points) are often slightly stronger than two rooks (ten points) or a queen (nine points) (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24), (Fine & Benko 2003:458, 582).

Alternate valuations

Although the 1/3/3/5/9 system of point totals is generally accepted, many other systems of valuing pieces have been presented. They have mostly been received poorly, although the point system itself falls under similar criticism, as all systems are very rigid and generally fail to take positional factors into account.

Several systems give the bishop slightly more value than the knight. A bishop is usually slightly more powerful than a knight, but not always – it depends on the position (Evans 1958:77,80), (Mayer 1997:7). A chess-playing program was given the value of 3 for the knight and 3.4 for the bishop, but that large of a difference was acknowledged to not be real (Mayer 1997:5).

Alternate systems, with pawn = 1
Chess nlt45.svg Chess blt45.svg Chess rlt45.svg Chess qlt45.svg Chess klt45.svg Source Date Comment
3.1 3.3 5.0 7.9 2.2 Sarratt? 1813 (rounded) pawns vary from 0.7 to 1.3[1]
3.05 3.50 5.48 9.94 Philidor 1817 also given by Staunton in 1847[2]
3 3 5 10 Peter Pratt early 19th century (Hooper & Whyld 1992:439)
3.5 3.5 5.7 10.3 Bilguer 1843 (rounded) (Hooper & Whyld 1992:439)

[3]

3 3 5 9-10 4 Lasker 1934 [4] (Lasker 1934:73)
10 Euwe 1944 (Euwe & Kramer 1994:11)
5 4 Lasker 1947 (rounded) Kingside rooks and bishops are valued more, queenside ones less[5]
3 3+ 5 9 Horowitz 1951 The bishop is "3 plus small fraction" (Horowitz 1951:11)
3½+ 5 10 4 Evans 1958 Bishop is 3¾ if in the bishop pair[6] (Evans 1958:77,80)
3 5 9 Fischer 1972 (Fischer, Mosenfelder & Margulies 1972:14)
3 3 European Committee on Computer Chess, Euwe 1970s (Brace 1977:236)
3 3 5 9-10 Soviet chess encyclopedia 1990 A queen equals three minor pieces or two rooks (Hooper & Whyld 1992:439)
5 Kaufman 1999 Add ½ point for the bishop pair[7] (Kaufman 1999)
3.20 3.33 5.10 8.80 Berliner 1999 plus adjustments for openness of position, rank & file (Berliner 1999:14–18)
5 9 Kurzdorfer 2003 (Kurzdorfer 2003:94)
5 early Soviet chess program (Soltis 2004:6)
3 3 9 another popular system (Soltis 2004:6)
4 7 13½ 4 used by a computer Two bishops are worth more (Hooper & Whyld 1992:439)
2.4 4.0 6.4 10.4 3.0 Yevgeny Gik based on average mobility; Soltis (2004:10–12) pointed out problems with this type of analysis

Hans Berliner's system

World Correspondence Chess Champion Hans Berliner gives the following valuations, based on experience and computer experiments:

  • pawn = 1
  • knight = 3.2
  • bishop = 3.33
  • rook = 5.1
  • queen = 8.8

There are adjustments for the rank and file of a pawn and adjustments for the pieces depending on how open or closed the position is. Bishops, rooks, and queens gain up to 10 percent more value in open positions and lose up to 20 percent in closed positions. Knights gain up to 50 percent in closed positions and lose up to 30 percent in the corners and edges of the board. The value of a good bishop may be at least 10 percent higher than that of a bad bishop (Berliner 1999:14–18).

Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
8  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __ 8
7  __  black pawn  __  __  __  __  __  __ 7
6  black pawn  __  __  __  black pawn  black pawn  __  black pawn 6
5  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __ 5
4  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __ 4
3  __  white pawn  white pawn  __  __  white pawn  __  white pawn 3
2  __  white pawn  __  __  __  white pawn  __  white pawn 2
1  __  __  __  __  __  __  __  __ 1
Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
Different types of doubled pawns (from Berliner).

There are different types of doubled pawns, see the diagram. White's doubled pawns on the b-file are the best situation in the diagram, since advancing the pawns and exchanging can get them un-doubled and mobile. The doubled b-pawn is worth 0.75 points. If the black pawn on a6 was on c6, it would not be possible to dissolve the doubled pawn, and it would be worth only 0.5 points. The doubled pawn on f2 is worth about 0.5 points. The second white pawn on the h-file is worth only 0.33 points, and additional pawns on the file would be worth only 0.2 points (Berliner 1999:18–20).

Value of non-passed pawn in the opening
Rank a & h file b & g file c & f file d & e file
2 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.10
3 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.15
4 0.90 0.95 1.10 1.20
5 0.97 1.03 1.17 1.27
6 1.06 1.12 1.25 1.40
Value of non-passed pawn in the endgame
Rank a & h file b & g file c & f file d & e file
2 1.20 1.05 0.95 0.90
3 1.20 1.05 0.95 0.90
4 1.25 1.10 1.00 0.95
5 1.33 1.17 1.07 1.00
6 1.45 1.29 1.16 1.05
Value of pawn advances (multiplier of base amount)
Rank Isolated Connected Passed Passed & connected
4 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.55
5 1.30 1.35 1.55 2.3
6 2.1 x x 3.5

Changing valuations in the endgame

As already noted when the standard values were firstly formulated (Lolli 1763:255), the relative strength of the pieces changes as a game progresses to the endgame. The value of pawns, rooks and, to a lesser extent, bishops may increase. The knight tends to lose some power, and the strength of the queen may be slightly lessened, as well. Some examples follow.

  • A queen versus two rooks
  • In the middlegame they are equal
  • In the endgame, the two rooks are somewhat more powerful. With no other pieces on the board, two rooks are equal to a queen and a pawn
  • A rook versus two minor pieces
  • In the opening and middlegame, a rook and two pawns are weaker than two bishops; equal to or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight; and equal to two knights
  • In the endgame, a rook and one pawn are equal to two knights; and equal or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight. A rook and two pawns are equal to two bishops (Alburt & Krogius 2005:402–3).
  • Bishops are often more powerful than rooks in the opening. Rooks are usually more powerful than bishops in the middlegame, and rooks dominate the minor pieces in the endgame (Seirawan 2003:ix).
  • As the tables in Berliner's system show, the values of pawns changes dramatically in the endgame. In the opening and middlegame, pawns on the central files are more valuable. In the late middlegame and endgame the situation reverses, and pawns on the wings become more valuable due to their likelihood of becoming an outside passed pawn and threatening to promote. When there is about fourteen points of material on both sides, the value of pawns on any file is about equal. After that, wing pawns become more valuable (Berliner 1999:16–20).

C.J.S. Purdy gave minor pieces a value of 3½ points in the opening and middlegame but 3 points in the endgame (Purdy 2003:146, 151).

Shortcomings of the system

Silman, diagram 308
Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
8  black rook  black king  black king  black queen  black king  black rook  black king  black king 8
7  black king  black bishop  black king  black knight  black pawn  black pawn  black bishop  black pawn 7
6  black pawn  black king  black king  black king  black king  black knight  black pawn  black king 6
5  black king  black pawn  black pawn  black king  white knight  black king  black king  black king 5
4  black king  black king  black king  white pawn  black king  black king  black king  black king 4
3  black king  white bishop  white knight  black king  white pawn  black king  black king  black king 3
2  white pawn  white pawn  black king  black king  white queen  white pawn  white pawn  white pawn 2
1  white rook  black king  white bishop  black king  black king  white rook  white king  black king 1
Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
White should not exchange a bishop and knight for a rook and pawn with 1. Nxf7?

There are shortcomings of the system. For instance, positions in which a bishop and knight can be exchanged for a rook and pawn are fairly common (see diagram). In this position, White should not do that, e.g.

1. Nxf7? Rxf7
2. Bxf7+ Kxf7

This seems like an even exchange (six points for six points), but it is not because two minor pieces are better than a rook and pawn in the middlegame (Silman 1998:340–42). Pachman also notes that two bishops are almost always better than a rook and pawn (Pachman 1971:11).

In most openings, two minor pieces are better than a rook and pawn and are usually at least as good as a rook and two pawns until the position is greatly simplified (i.e. late middlegame or endgame). Minor pieces get into play earlier than rooks and they coordinate better, especially when there are many pieces and pawns on the board. Rooks are usually developed later and are often blocked by pawns until later in the game (Watson 2006:102).

Silman, diagram 307
Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
8  black rook  black knight  black king  black queen  black king  black rook  black king  black king 8
7  black king  black king  black pawn  black king  black pawn  black pawn  black king  black pawn 7
6  black pawn  black king  black king  black king  black king  black king  black pawn  black king 6
5  black king  black pawn  black king  black king  black king  black king  black king  black king 5
4  black king  black king  black king  white pawn  black king  black king  black king  black king 4
3  black king  white pawn  white knight  black king  black king  white knight  black king  black king 3
2  black king  white pawn  black king  black king  black king  white pawn  white pawn  white pawn 2
1  white rook  black king  white bishop  black king  white king  white bishop  black king  white rook 1
Solid white.svg a b c d e f g h Solid white.svg
Three minor pieces are better than a queen

This situation in this position is not very common, but White has exchanged a queen (nine points) for three minor pieces and a pawn (ten points). Three minor pieces are usually better than a queen because of their greater mobility, and the extra pawn is not important enough to change the situation (Silman 1998:340–41). Three minor pieces are almost as strong as two rooks (Pachman 1971:11).

Two minor pieces plus two pawns are almost always as good as a queen. Two rooks are better than a queen and pawn (Berliner 1999:13–14).

Many of the systems have a two-point difference between the rook and a minor piece, but most theorists put that difference at about 1½ points, see The exchange (chess)#Value of the exchange.

In open positions, a rook plus a pair of bishops is stronger than two rooks plus a knight (Kaufeld & Kern 2011:79).

See also

Notes

  1. ^ pawn 2 at the start, 3¾ in the endgame; knight 9¼; bishop 9¾; rook 15; queen 23¾; king as attacking piece (in the endgame) 6½; these values are divided by 3 and rounded
  2. ^ In the 1817 edition of Philidor's Studies of Chess, the editor (Peter Pratt) gave the same values. Howard Staunton in The Chess-Player's Handbook and a later book gave these values without explaining how they were obtained. He notes that piece values are dependent on the position and the phase of the game (the queen typically less valuable toward the endgame) (Staunton 1847, 34) (Staunton 1870, 30–31).
  3. ^ Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843) gave pawn 1.5; knight 5.3; bishop 5.3; rook 8.6; queen 15.5
  4. ^ Lasker gave:
    • Knight = 3 pawns
    • Bishop = knight
    • Rook = knight plus 2 pawns
    • queen = 2 rooks = 3 knights
    • king = knight + pawn
  5. ^ Lasker gave these relative values for the early part of the game:
    • rook pawn: ½
    • knight pawn: 1¼
    • bishop pawn: 1½
    • central pawn: 2
    • knight: 4½
    • queen bishop: 4½
    • king bishop: 5
    • queen rook: 6
    • king rook: 7
    • queen: 11 (Burgess 2000:491)
    Lasker adjusts some of these depending on the starting positions, with pawns nearer the centre, with bishops and rooks on the kingside, being worth more:
    • centre (d/e-file) pawn = 1½ points, a/h-file pawn = ½ point
    • c-file bishop = 3½ points, f-file bishop = 3¾ points
    • a-file rook = 4½ points, h-file rook = 5¼ points (Lasker 1947:107).
  6. ^ In his book New Ideas in Chess, Evans initially gives the bishop a value of 3½ points (the same as a knight) but three pages later on the topic of the bishop pair states that theory says that it is actually worth about ¼ point more.
  7. ^ All values rounded to the nearest ¼ point. Kaufman elaborates about how the values of knights and rooks change, depending on the number of pawns on the board: "A further refinement would be to raise the knight's value by 1/16 and lower the rook's value by ⅛ for each pawn above five of the side being valued, with the opposite adjustment for each pawn short of five."

References

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Chess piece point value — Changing valuations in the endgameThe relative value of pieces changes as a game progresses to the endgame. The relative value of pawns and rooks may increase, and the value of bishops may increase also, though usually to a lesser extent. The… …   Wikipedia

  • Chess piece — For other uses, see Chess piece (disambiguation). Original Staunton chess pieces, left to right: pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, and king. Chess pieces …   Wikipedia

  • Chess strategy — is the aspect of chess playing that is concerned with the evaluation of chess positions and the setting of goals and long term plans for future play. While evaluating a position strategically, a player must take into account such factors as the… …   Wikipedia

  • Chess endgame — In chess and chess like games, the endgame (or end game or ending) is the stage of the game when there are few pieces left on the board. The line between middlegame and endgame is often not clear, and may occur gradually or with the quick… …   Wikipedia

  • Chess theory — The game of chess is commonly divided into three phases: the opening, middlegame, and endgame.[1] As to each of these phases, especially the opening and endgame, there is a large body of theory as how the game should be played. Those who write… …   Wikipedia

  • Chess middlegame — a b c d e f g h …   Wikipedia

  • Chess tactics — In chess, a tactic refers to a sequence of moves which limits the opponent s options and may result in tangible gain. Tactics are usually contrasted with strategy, in which advantages take longer to be realized, and the opponent is less… …   Wikipedia

  • chess — chess1 /ches/, n. a game played by two persons, each with 16 pieces, on a chessboard. [1150 1200; ME < OF esches, pl. of eschec CHECK1] chess2 /ches/, n., pl. chess, chesses. one of the planks forming the roadway of a floating bridge. [1425 75;… …   Universalium

  • value — n. & v. n. 1 the worth, desirability, or utility of a thing, or the qualities on which these depend (the value of regular exercise). 2 worth as estimated; valuation (set a high value on my time). 3 the amount of money or goods for which a thing… …   Useful english dictionary

  • value — /val yooh/, n., v., valued, valuing. n. 1. relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a college education; the value of a queen in chess. 2. monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade: This piece of land has greatly increased in… …   Universalium