Answers.Body: <p>This question can hardly have an objective answer, as the time controls and the strength of the players both matter a lot while valuing material and time management. A partial answer would be given assuming a time control of 1 minute. For this time control, regardless of the strength of the players, we can safely say that on lost positions the knight is the most valuable piece (after the queen). This is stated many times by IM Daniel Rensch on his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-qLOQ-OEls4-V65cOOr8DIWq-qxH33zI" rel="nofollow">Bullet Brawl Series</a>.</p>
  
  <p>When the player possessing the knight has more time, this difference is accentuated as he may look for tricks and swindles to try to make his opponent blunder or even lose on time. The forking ability of the knight is what makes it such a good piece in bullet, as some times the fork occurs and the knight cannot even be captured after he wins one of the forked pieces. This advantage is almost completely nullified when there is some kind of increment, allowing the players to take their time and think a bit more about the position.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-21T17:43:45.187Z
Answers.Text: Well, while this is not a complete answer, I would say that this offers an interesting idea. With the increase of increment, the disadvantage is inversely proportional to its square.
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-21T14:47:56.113Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-09-21T14:47:56.113Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pablo S. Ocal
Body: <p>Let us say that two players are playing each other. The are supposed to be in the same level (You can take that as an equal longtime ELO). They might be playing blitz, or rapid. But suddently, one of them blunders a pawn. Too bad. But the guy with one less pawn has more time. Is he compensated?</p>
  
  <p>So to clear this out:</p>
  
  <p>Is there a formula, supposing that the pieces have the following values:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Pawn - 1</li>
  <li>Knight/Bishop - 3</li>
  <li>Rook - 5</li>
  <li>Queen - 9</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>And that there is a time difference between both players.</p>
  
  <p>Regarding all factors, so remaining time for both players, increment, is there a formula that calculates what a piece is worth in time?</p>
  
  <p>Increment will be a very important factor to consider. Because increment can save you if you have a very small amount of time.</p>
  
  <p>Also the results cannot be precise to the maximum. We will suppose that the position would be equal if the lost piece was suddenly there. So 0.00.</p>
  
  <p>Please ask me in the comments if you need any extra details.</p>
  
  <p>EDIT:</p>
  
  <p>In the comments it was noted to me that a passed pawn position could be fatal. So I am adding this condition:</p>
  
  <p>The position will be valued by an computer program as 1.00 if a pawn is lost, 3.00 if a knight/bishop is lost, etc. This is to limit the search to games where the win is still unclear.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-06T13:31:47.070Z
Comments.Text: Are you asking, “How much is a second of time on the clock worth in terms of pawns?”
Comments.UserDisplayName: Nick
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-06T13:33:33.740Z
Comments.Text: Well, you can take it that way, but I think it would be incorrect, because of the increment. A pawn in worth of seconds would be better
Comments.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-06T14:34:45.980Z
Comments.Text: depends on the position. If that extra pawn is a passed pawn in a K+P endgame, no amount of extra time for the pawn-loser will help - the only thing that would help might be a *lack* of time on the part of the pawn-winner.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-06T15:15:52.797Z
Comments.Text: As I said, if there was a pawn in an appropriate position, the position would be drawn. Maybe we can limit it to middlegame only.
Comments.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-08T03:11:27.380Z
Comments.Text: I don't think this question is answerable. It's not possible to relate a pawn to the number of seconds on a clock.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-08T12:02:31.250Z
Comments.Text: In blitz, the clock is a piece by itself.
Comments.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-08T18:16:12.213Z
Comments.Text: A possible answer vector:  Get a computer to play itself, one side down a pawn up N minutes in time, and see for which value of N the advantage swings toward the side with one pawn.  (It's probably more like the ratio than the absolute difference, but you see the point).  A similar experiment could be done with humans if you had the time data, but the computer version seems like a good first approximation.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cam McLeman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-08T18:49:44.877Z
Comments.Text: Computers will play in such a way that the time will never run out, and always play the top rated move. Interesting, but needs more justification.
Comments.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-08T22:04:59.497Z
Comments.Text: The comment you just made kind of highlights why this can't be answered. As the players get better, the time on the clock matters less and the pawn matters more. There is no one correct answer.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cleveland
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-09T07:20:02.430Z
Comments.Text: Well think like a human. How much will the pawn be worth if you won't be able to make a plan due to the lack of time, while your opponent con hold the draw, and even a win!
Comments.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-09T12:35:44.140Z
Comments.Text: This question is absolutely impossible, as in chess, piece value is strictly position dependent! Or in other words, position evaluation and piece worth are both relative to the exact state of each piece on the board. Additionally the time difference you want to include, makes it even more impossible to answer, as time changes the quality of play of the players and not the value of pieces on the board! I'm afraid this scenario is too far fetched and impossible.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ellie
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-09T12:52:18.190Z
Comments.Text: That is why I cleared out that a computer would value the position as exactly x.00, where x is the value of the piece
Comments.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-15T11:50:15.333Z
Comments.Text: People yous should answer! Only several hours till the bounty ends
Comments.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Tags: <blitz><point-value><pieces>
Title: Worth of a piece in time
ThreadText: # Worth of a piece in time
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-09-06)
  
  Let us say that two players are playing each other. The are supposed to be in the same level (You can take that as an equal longtime ELO). They might be playing blitz, or rapid. But suddently, one of them blunders a pawn. Too bad. But the guy with one less pawn has more time. Is he compensated?
  
  So to clear this out:
  
  Is there a formula, supposing that the pieces have the following values:
  
  * Pawn - 1
  * Knight/Bishop - 3
  * Rook - 5
  * Queen - 9
  
  And that there is a time difference between both players.
  
  Regarding all factors, so remaining time for both players, increment, is there a formula that calculates what a piece is worth in time?
  
  Increment will be a very important factor to consider. Because increment can save you if you have a very small amount of time.
  
  Also the results cannot be precise to the maximum. We will suppose that the position would be equal if the lost piece was suddenly there. So 0.00.
  
  Please ask me in the comments if you need any extra details.
  
  EDIT:
  
  In the comments it was noted to me that a passed pawn position could be fatal. So I am adding this condition:
  
  The position will be valued by an computer program as 1.00 if a pawn is lost, 3.00 if a knight/bishop is lost, etc. This is to limit the search to games where the win is still unclear.
  
  **Tags:** blitz, point-value, pieces
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Are you asking, “How much is a second of time on the clock worth in terms of pawns?”  
  > **username_0**: Well, you can take it that way, but I think it would be incorrect, because of the increment. A pawn in worth of seconds would be better  
  > **username_2**: depends on the position. If that extra pawn is a passed pawn in a K+P endgame, no amount of extra time for the pawn-loser will help - the only thing that would help might be a *lack* of time on the part of the pawn-winner.  
  > **username_0**: As I said, if there was a pawn in an appropriate position, the position would be drawn. Maybe we can limit it to middlegame only.  
  > **username_3**: I don't think this question is answerable. It's not possible to relate a pawn to the number of seconds on a clock.  
  > **username_0**: In blitz, the clock is a piece by itself.  
  > **username_4**: A possible answer vector:  Get a computer to play itself, one side down a pawn up N minutes in time, and see for which value of N the advantage swings toward the side with one pawn.  (It's probably more like the ratio than the absolute difference, but you see the point).  A similar experiment could be done with humans if you had the time data, but the computer version seems like a good first approximation.  
  > **username_0**: Computers will play in such a way that the time will never run out, and always play the top rated move. Interesting, but needs more justification.  
  > **username_5**: The comment you just made kind of highlights why this can't be answered. As the players get better, the time on the clock matters less and the pawn matters more. There is no one correct answer.  
  > **username_0**: Well think like a human. How much will the pawn be worth if you won't be able to make a plan due to the lack of time, while your opponent con hold the draw, and even a win!  
  > **username_6**: This question is absolutely impossible, as in chess, piece value is strictly position dependent! Or in other words, position evaluation and piece worth are both relative to the exact state of each piece on the board. Additionally the time difference you want to include, makes it even more impossible to answer, as time changes the quality of play of the players and not the value of pieces on the board! I'm afraid this scenario is too far fetched and impossible.  
  > **username_0**: That is why I cleared out that a computer would value the position as exactly x.00, where x is the value of the piece  
  > **username_0**: People yous should answer! Only several hours till the bounty ends  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2014-09-21. Score: 3
  
  This question can hardly have an objective answer, as the time controls and the strength of the players both matter a lot while valuing material and time management. A partial answer would be given assuming a time control of 1 minute. For this time control, regardless of the strength of the players, we can safely say that on lost positions the knight is the most valuable piece (after the queen). This is stated many times by IM Daniel Rensch on his [Bullet Brawl Series](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-qLOQ-OEls4-V65cOOr8DIWq-qxH33zI).
  
  When the player possessing the knight has more time, this difference is accentuated as he may look for tricks and swindles to try to make his opponent blunder or even lose on time. The forking ability of the knight is what makes it such a good piece in bullet, as some times the fork occurs and the knight cannot even be captured after he wins one of the forked pieces. This advantage is almost completely nullified when there is some kind of increment, allowing the players to take their time and think a bit more about the position.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Well, while this is not a complete answer, I would say that this offers an interesting idea. With the increase of increment, the disadvantage is inversely proportional to its square.  
  
  ---
  
  