Chess2u
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Chess2u

# Material value for the pieces

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', where 100 centipawns = 1 pawn, which allows strategic features of the position, worth less than a single pawn, to be evaluated without requiring fractions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value
http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
IvanHoe T50 , T0.5.x Versions pieces values
pawn = 100
knight = 350
bishop = 350
rook = 500
queen = 1000
I believe we (Anyone interested in chess in the world) did not find yet the best Material value for the pieces
Yes Ahmed,
great truth..

although it would be interesting to be able to express a more positional game
:sm86:
engines programs very tactical and strategic
Richard Lang I remember .. In early versions dos gui
is able to express a great positional game
You agree?
if you have two engines one very good in tactical play and the other good in positional play
i think the engine with positional play will win
but in my side I like be there a balance between positional play and tactical play
The piece values a computer uses the following sort of scoring algorithm

Queen = 9 points
Rook = 5 points
Bishop = 3 points
Knight = 3 points
Pawn = 1 point
King = Between 41 and 200 points - this varies from computer to computer, but it needs to be large enough so that it isn't exchanged off by mistake.
Ahmed wrote:
Material value Project
we work on new Project to find the best Material value
so if any compiler or tester interested in joining our group just send P.M to me
Best Regards
Ahmed

good idea
IvanHoe T0.5.4.1 pieces values
pawn = 90
knight = 280
bishop = 280
rook = 440
queen = 810
pawn = 80
knight = 310
bishop = 310
rook = 480
queen = 900

trey this ahmed in 5.2 this has helped in the t55a for me.
but the pawn is Very few In relation to the other Pieces
the ratio must be Balanced to don't get a weakness point in the play
any way i will try this values
thanks
and about rybka 4 Materials values
Rybka 4 x64 Exp. 42

White Pawn cp=3
Black Pawn cp=2
White Knight cp=10
Black Knight cp=8
White King Bishop cp=10
Black King Bishop cp=8
White Queen Bishop cp=10
Black Queen Bishop cp=8
White Rook cp=17
Black Rook cp=13
White Queen cp=39
Black Queen cp=33
Ahmed
can you tell me What is the better materials values for ivanhoe ?
Thanks in advance
I believe we did not find yet the best Material value for the pieces. but i get good Result in SWCR rating list, about +8 ELO with this Materials values:

IvanHoe T0.5.4.1
pawn = 90
knight = 280
bishop = 280
rook = 440
queen = 810

anyway, i work on another values ( More balanced ) better than the Previous values about +5 ELO

Thank u Ahmed
I use following numbers:

1. 1.00  Pawn
2. 3.00  Knight
3. 3.25  Bishop
4. 5.00  Rook
5. 9.00  Queen
6. 3.50  King

• The Kings endgame capabilities are considered to be slightly stronger than an bishop.

Commoner is notably stronger in practice than a minor piece.
This is a very short-range and very flexible piece that is much weaker than a Knight in the opening, very strong in the middlegame if it can occupy the center, and almost always wins against a Knight or Bishop in the endgame. The weakness of this piece is that it takes a long time to get from one section of the board to another; for example, in the opening, it takes 2 or 4 moves to get a WF properly developed. Its strength is that it concentrates a lot of striking power in a small area.

• The bishop pair has an average value of half a pawn.

• When the side down the Exchange has the bishop pair, my data shows he needs only 1.15 pawns to make things even.

Less than or equal to at most

Quote wrote:
«In the middlegame two minor pieces are usually much stronger than a rook. in an endgame this advantage is much less substantial, sometimes a rook can even gain the upper hand. The reason is that pawn chains in a middlegame restrict the rook's mobility. In an endgame, on the contrary, the rook enjoys full mobility»

Quote wrote:
«In the middlegame, particularly in positions bearing a closed character, two minor pieces will be stronger than a rook even where there is a deficit in pawns. However, in endings where the rook has room for action, the situation often depends on the arrangement of the pawns. Thus, when there is a distant passed pawn on the board, the rook can prove to be stronger than two pieces. However with a balanced
pawn formation the situation may be reversed»

Quote wrote:
«In his day Wilhelm Steinitz, the very first chess world champion, rated the bishop pair very highly and was convinced that they constituted an advantage. Like all strategic themes, the strength of the bishop pair is of course to a large extent dependent on the pawn structure: in open positions and when the pawns are on both wings the range and the power of the bishop pair are particularly valuable. The bishop pair is also very capable of compensating for a material deficit; it is, e.g., well-known that in open positions the bishop pair combined with a rook is stronger than the combination of two rooks and a knight. The superiority of the two bishops can also be seen in the struggle againstother minor pieces, that is to say against a bishop and a knight or against two knights»

Quote wrote:
In the middlegame the two bishops should be employed as actively as possible in the attack on the king. But the bishop pair is also very valuable in the endgame. It is possible with a deliberately planned exchange of one of the two bishops to transpose to an advantageous endgame such as ‘bishop versus knight’ or ‘good bishop versus bad bishop’. "

John Nunn wrote:
«Two minor pieces are worth more than a rook, but the difference is smaller in the endgame than earlier on. For example, in the middlegame a bishop and a knight are usually worth more than a rook and a pawn, While in the endgame they are more or less balanced. However, in any part of the game two bishops are a formidable force and generafly outweigh a rook and a pawn»

John Nunn wrote:
A bishop and knight normally beat a rook if pawns are equal, but considerable work may be required. The attacking side must aim to fix the enemy pawns, so that the two pieces can simultaneously target them.

John Nunn wrote:
On the other hand, a rook and two pawns are worth more than a bishop and knight in the ending. This is a relatively favourable case for the pieces, as the pawns are pretty much on one side of the board and the d-pawn is weak. However, accurate defence is necessary.

John Nunn wrote:
A queen is worth more than a rook and a minor piece, but Whether this material baiaace offers winning chances depends very much on the position. The above diagram may look drawish due to the symmetrical pawn~structure, but in fact White has good winning chances because Biack lacks a stable square for his bishop. on b6 it can be dislodged by an eventual a5. while
Black never has time for ....Bd4 and ...e5.

Quote wrote:
«The King is always uncomfortable in the center when the position is open. Most of the time he is decidedly unsafe. In the center the King can be attacked from the front, right side and left side, a total of three directions. In an open position the attack can come almost simultaneously from these directions. If the defending side is even a bit behind in development, the attack can quickly become overwhelming»

Steve Mayer wrote:
«Yet to play without the King means playing without one potentially useful piece. Mikhail Tal, a former world champion, has intriguingly suggested that in many positions the value of an active King is about “3 points,” i.e. equivalent to a minor piece»

Steve Mayer wrote:
«The power of the king as an active piece is one of the main characteristics of the endgame»

Quote wrote:
Never be satisfied with the placement of your pieces. If you see a better square for one or more of them, look for ways to get the piece there; and mainly, use your imagination.

Steve Mayer wrote:
«Adding the better cooperation of the rook with the bishops, many Soviet theoreticians believed that, in active positions, rook and two bishops outperform two rooks and a knight»

Steve Mayer wrote:
The bishop pair is also very capable of compensating for a material deficit; it is, e.g., well-known that in open positions the bishop pair combined with a rook is stronger than the combination of two rooks and a knight. The superiority of the two bishops can also be seen in the struggle against other minor pieces, that is to say against a bishop and a knight or against two knights.

Steve Mayer wrote:
«It is well established that rook and knight is inferior to rook and bishop in the ending, so it would not be all that surprising if the side with the bishop were to be favoured in a queen and knight versus queen and bishop ending»

John Nunn wrote:
Two knights are the worst combination of minor pieces when fighting against a rook.

Quote wrote:
The power of the two bishops noticeably increases
as the quantity of pawns and pieces on
the board diminishes - in other words, as the
endgame approaches.

Steve Mayer wrote:
«The sacrifice for active bishops is difficult to study in a systematic manner. However, a pair of active bishops is frequently adequate compensation for a pawn or even the exchange - in a middlegame position»

Steve Mayer wrote:
«The bishop pair can be particularly effective in situations with opposite-wing castling. Especially in the sicilian defence»

Steve Mayer wrote:
«It is difficult to draw up any ‘general rules’ for when one should sacrifice a pawn to activate a bishop pair. In many situations, a pair of bishops will be active ‘in their own right’ , but a pawn disadvantage can still prove to be a pawndisadvantage. These decisions are cases that must be considered on an individual basis»

Steve Mayer wrote:
«Many of the Classicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century claimed that two bishops versus rook and knight were equivalent. I don’t believe that this is the case, i.e., I think the extra material will usually win out, but this view continues to influence chess thinking to some extent even today»

Steve Giddins wrote:
«Two rooks roughly balance a queen, but with equal pawns, the rocks are usually stronger. This is especially true if there are weak pawns to attack, since the rocks can double up and attack them more times than the queen can defend. This is a typical example»

Quote wrote:
«A natural assumption is that the two rooks will be stronger than the queen in the majority of positions; another is that a material balance is struck when the side with the queen has an extra pawn. I must admit that, when I examined top-flight games from my database, I was surprised to see that the queen outscored the rocks. I would have predicted a small edge for the rocks but in fact the side with the queen managed 55%»

A Knight without advanced posts is inferior to an active Bishop. Don't let the enemy Knight find a good square!

When your Bishop is taking on a Knight, open up the position as much as possible. If your pawns block your Bishop, remove these
obstacles and treat that Bishop to wide-open diagonals!

Let us draw some initial conclusions - the bishop-pair can be a huge strengt but only when coordinated and only when their diagonals are not doggedly blocked by pawns for considerable lenght of time. As the rule goes, the more space the bishops have, the more effective they become.

John Nunn wrote:
It is well-known that two bishops are better than a bishop and a knight in open positions. However, the same is true in many semi-open positions.

[Hide] Balance  [/Hide]

This exiting game shows the power of the Bishop Pair and it's capability of compensating for a material deficit.

Steve Mayer wrote:
Few attacking forces are as powerful as a pair of active bishops. A pair of bishops is usually considered to be worth six ‘points’, but common sense suggests that a pair of active bishops must be accorded a value of almost nine under some circumstances. It should come as no surprise that it often proves fruitful to sacrifice a pawn or even an exchange to activate a bishop pair.

[pgn][Event "Amsterdam"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Date "1970.07.18"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Vlastimil Hort"]
[Black "Svetozar Gligoric"]
[ECO "E82"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "82"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 b6 7.Bd3 a6
8.Nge2 c5 9.e5 Nfd7 10.exd6 exd6 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.Be4 Bb7
13.O-O-O Nf6 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.Bg5 Rc8 16.d5 Bd7 17.Ng3 Re8
18.Qf4 Re5 19.Nce4 Rxg5 20.Qxg5 b5 21.Nxd6 Rb8 22.Nge4 h6
23.Qe3 Nxe4 24.Nxe4 bxc4 25.Rd2 Qa5 26.Kb1 c3 27.Rc2 Bd4
28.Qe1 Qa3 29.Nxc3 Bf5 30.Ka1 Rxb2 31.Rxb2 Bxc3 32.Qc1 c4
33.d6 Bf6 34.Rd1 c3 35.Rc2 Qa4 36.d7 Bxd7 37.g4 Be6 38.Re1 Bb3
39.Ree2 Bxa2 40.Qxh6 Bc4 41.Kb1 Bxe2 0-1[/pgn]
In-depth analyze - http://nb.lichess.org/fXeEimF8#82

Last edited by QueensideCastler on Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:40 am; edited 23 times in total
I would have thought the value of pieces all depends on the postion,  sometimes the pawn can be as powerful as a Queen.
stagehand wrote:
I would have thought the value of pieces all depends on the postion,  sometimes the pawn can be as powerful as a Queen.

If the bishop pair is equivalent to rook and two pawns, i belive it's natural to assume BBP to be equal against RN. For some reasons the RN side have a slight to trivial edge.

Two Bishops against Rook and Minor Piece
"In the endgame it is sometimes not clear which of these combinations of pieces is the stronger. It generally depends on the other material or on positional factors"
The knight is a combinative piece and therefore seeks middlegame complexities, whereas the bishop prefers endgame simplicity. Hence exchange and simplification, reducing the tactics and bringing the edngame closer, are farouable to the side possessing the bishop-pair.

The power of the two bishops noticeable increases as the quantity of pawns and pieces on the board disminishes - in other words, as the endgame approaches.
«The Queen is weaker than two Rooks if the hostile King is protected against Checks, otherwise it may be stronger. Ceteris paribus, it would appear that the Queen is trifle weaker than two Rooks»

Definition of trifle "something that does not have much value or importance"
"With other things the same" or "other things being equal or held constant"
"...At the same time, two knights frequently face problems fighting against a rook. The rook has a much more complicated task when playing against a knight and a bishop."

My implication says that two knights is the worst minor piece combo versus single rook.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum