Timeline for Losing the queen and then winning the game
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2019 at 16:57 | comment | added | supercat | @David: Pieces which are well-placed are worth more than pieces which are undeveloped but have reasonable prospects, which are in turn worth more than pieces which will be trapped for the foreseeable future. One can assign scores to pieces whose placement is neither great nor horrible, with the caveat that such scores may not be applicable to pieces whose placement is better or worse. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 15:33 | history | edited | David | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
scoring clarification
|
| Jun 26, 2019 at 15:27 | history | edited | David | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
scoring clarification
|
| Jun 26, 2019 at 15:02 | comment | added | David | OK. You have your thoughts. I have mine. We talk different languages. I see no point in discussing this any further. I'll let the potential reader judge himself | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:58 | comment | added | UKMonkey | @David - what you're doing is tearing down a strawman. Re-read my comments and you'll answer your question. Hint: "reading it as a rule is folly" | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:51 | comment | added | David | @UKMonkey My logic is very simple: 1: Let's assume it is possible to assign numbers to piece strength. 2: Then that point system should be aware of the "power relationships" that often occur in chess games. 3: This power unbalance between 3 pieces and a queen is not reflected. 4: A different (or none) scoring system is needed. You argue that step 3 is flawed because there is not such unbalance, but then my question is: Why does the point system then insist that rooks are stronger than knights or bishops? Sometimes they are not! It's also situation-dependent | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:46 | comment | added | UKMonkey | "the fact that 3 minor pieces are stronger than a queen" but that's the point you're missing. It's not a fact - even though you keep claiming it to be. It's a situational point where they MAY be stronger - but they can easily be weaker. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:30 | comment | added | David | @UKMonkey But you hardly ever reach a queen vs three piees position in an empty board. The pieces give you a good chance of attacking as well as pushing passed pawns. Even on the empty board, the queen has no chance of winning. If you want a point system that somehow serves as a reference, it should contemplate this fact: the pieces are stronger. Are there exceptions? Of course! Just as sometimes a knight is better than a rook. But if any general rule about piece value is entertained, it should "contain" the fact that 3 minor pieces are stronger than a queen. Some even say queen are worth 10! | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:21 | comment | added | UKMonkey | @David somewhat depends on the state of the game. remove all the pawns and then see how the 3 pieces survive when the king is constantly in check; or as I said - when a single rook is trapped. The points system is a guide; and reading it as a rule is folly | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:17 | comment | added | David | @UKMonkey Three minor pieces are almost always stronger than a queen. Also, the winning chances of two rooks against a queen are way bigger than that of a queen against rook-bishop | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:15 | comment | added | UKMonkey | "Some folks will come with a "points system", well, that's just plain wrong." given that the points say a queen is worth 9; bishop/knight 3; rook 5; you get: 2 rooks a little more powerful; a rook + bishop/knight a little less; 2 bishops/knights a fair bit less; 3 bishops/knights about the same. Of course - neither comment takes into account that a rook that's pinned behind a king and pawns is worthless. Points seem to get the same result as your comment. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:12 | comment | added | Grade 'Eh' Bacon | @David Don't you think there's value in having a player understand "don't give up a rook for a knight without compensation?" The starting point for that discussion is... the points the pieces start as. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:08 | comment | added | David | @Grade'Eh'Bacon Except sometimes it isn't. And sometimes a -1 position is completely hopeless. And the bishop pair is often stronger than bishop-knighit. And three minor pices are often stronger than a queen. And a rook vs a minor piece +2 pawns can be a winning advantage in some endgames and losing in others. And queen+knight is often as strong as queen+rook. The list goes on forever. That's why I don't recommend beginners to learn the "points system", because once they learn it, it will be very difficult to eventually un-learn it (and they will at some point have to!) | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 14:01 | comment | added | Grade 'Eh' Bacon | I think for inexperienced players, the framework of a points system (pawn = 1, knight / bishop = 3, rook = 5, queen = 9) is a helpful tool. For someone of the OP's indicated level of chess knowledge, asking 'how much is the queen worth' is, in my opinion, best answered with that system. This can be seen in @user1583209's answer where he indicates that even a +/- 3 points is disastrous at a reasonable player level. | |
| Jun 26, 2019 at 8:55 | comment | added | David | @user1583209 OK, I kind of found it weird that you put that comment and then basically agreed with me in your answer. The issue may be word choice (useless rather than wrong) although, if it were right, wouldn't it also be useful after all? Anyway, who cares about that detail | |
| Jun 25, 2019 at 21:51 | comment | added | user1583209 | Fully agree (also see my answer). I was merely objecting to the blunt statement you gave ("wrong .."). | |
| Jun 25, 2019 at 21:48 | comment | added | David | @Grešnik If it's a full queen, with no compensation, not even the strongest supercomputer in the world would beat an average club player. There are some tips for playing those positions (mainly, attack the enemy king and don't trade pieces), but with such big on an unbalance, any decent player can get a win. It's a different story, though, if the queenless player has other material in exchange (like two bishops for instance) when the game can still get complicated | |
| Jun 25, 2019 at 21:46 | comment | added | David | @user1583209 I don't think that's a valid argument, as most techniques used by computers are of no value to human players, why should the pointing system be any different? Also, the way computers evaluate positions is way more complicated than just the points. On the other hand, stating "knight and bishop are equal" or "two rooks equal a queen and a pawn" is meaningless outside of its context. As an example, RR+5P vs Q+7P is a very different type of material unbalance than, let's say, RN+5P vs RN+6P. Considering them somewhat equivalent is confusing and of no practical value | |
| Jun 25, 2019 at 18:54 | comment | added | user1583209 | @David: Why do you think the points system is wrong? After all that's what computers use (and very successfully...). | |
| Jun 25, 2019 at 18:16 | comment | added | Grešnik | Are you sure that there is no, when losing the queen, some extremely good strategy to win over even good average players? | |
| Jun 25, 2019 at 18:05 | history | answered | David | CC BY-SA 4.0 |