4 ms·

What I enjoy about this design is it exploits the correlation between piece value with the number of ways it can move, resulting in a visual intuition that more

by mxwsn 3y ago

What I enjoy about this design is it exploits the correlation between piece value with the number of ways it can move, resulting in a visual intuition that more visually complex pieces are worth more on average. The knight is perhaps the frustrating exceptions to this.

neilk 3y ago
Piece value is determined by how many squares it can threaten. This is why rooks are worth 5 and bishops are worth 3, despite both having apparently equal freedom of movement (just rotated 45 degrees). The bishop will be able to access strictly fewer squares than the rook even in the best case, and usually much fewer. And the bishop is stuck on one color.
- V-2 3y ago
  "This is why rooks are worth 5 and bishops are worth 3" Such evaluations are only a rule of thumb intended for beginners. It's all context dependent. There are positions where a Bishop is more powerful than a Rook. Other things being equal, Bishops tend to be preferred over Knights in serious play (especially when you've got a Bishop pair, which is synergically more powerful than one Bishop times two), even though both are theoretically "worth" 3 pawns. Two minor pieces are usually worth more than a Rook and a pawn, and more often than not it isn't a good idea to exchange the former for the latter, even though the total value appears the same (3+3 = 5+1). And so on.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Actually the numbers 5 and 3 are not derived from the number of squares attacked. They denote the power of pieces in relation to eachother, as a general rule with lots of exceptions, and reflects many material imbalances that are often comparable in strength(usually in the endgame). The unit of measurement here is the material value of a single pawn. 3(3x1) pawns are often enough compensation for for a knight(3) or a bishop(3 + ε). 3 minor pieces(3×3) are often sufficient compensation for a queen(9). One minor piece and 2 pawns(3+2) are often sufficient for a rook(5). Two rooks(2x5) are typically slightly stronger than a queen(9). Two minor pieces(2x3) are typically slightly stronger than a rook(5). There are different systems that are derived from number of squares attacked. One thing to note about these systems is that pawns are not created equal. Rook pawns attack one squares less than other pawns, for instance.
HeWhoLurksLate 3y ago
At least at the level I play at, knights are invaluable because of their ability to jump over walls and threaten multiple pieces at the same time - they're the piece most likely to create a successful fork (threatening two pieces of value at the same time, likely forcing your opponent to pick which thing they're more willing to lose)

by mxwsn 3y ago

neilk 3y ago

Piece value is determined by how many squares it can threaten. This is why rooks are worth 5 and bishops are worth 3, despite both having apparently equal freedom of movement (just rotated 45 degrees). The bishop will be able to access strictly fewer squares than the rook even in the best case, and usually much fewer. And the bishop is stuck on one color.

V-2 3y ago
"This is why rooks are worth 5 and bishops are worth 3" Such evaluations are only a rule of thumb intended for beginners. It's all context dependent. There are positions where a Bishop is more powerful than a Rook. Other things being equal, Bishops tend to be preferred over Knights in serious play (especially when you've got a Bishop pair, which is synergically more powerful than one Bishop times two), even though both are theoretically "worth" 3 pawns. Two minor pieces are usually worth more than a Rook and a pawn, and more often than not it isn't a good idea to exchange the former for the latter, even though the total value appears the same (3+3 = 5+1). And so on.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
Actually the numbers 5 and 3 are not derived from the number of squares attacked. They denote the power of pieces in relation to eachother, as a general rule with lots of exceptions, and reflects many material imbalances that are often comparable in strength(usually in the endgame). The unit of measurement here is the material value of a single pawn. 3(3x1) pawns are often enough compensation for for a knight(3) or a bishop(3 + ε). 3 minor pieces(3×3) are often sufficient compensation for a queen(9). One minor piece and 2 pawns(3+2) are often sufficient for a rook(5). Two rooks(2x5) are typically slightly stronger than a queen(9). Two minor pieces(2x3) are typically slightly stronger than a rook(5). There are different systems that are derived from number of squares attacked. One thing to note about these systems is that pawns are not created equal. Rook pawns attack one squares less than other pawns, for instance.

HeWhoLurksLate 3y ago

At least at the level I play at, knights are invaluable because of their ability to jump over walls and threaten multiple pieces at the same time - they're the piece most likely to create a successful fork (threatening two pieces of value at the same time, likely forcing your opponent to pick which thing they're more willing to lose)