Answers.Body: <p>The answer by MikroDel gives the commonly-used &quot;Reinfeld values&quot; of pawn=1, bishop=knight=3, rook=5, and queen=9 (kings are essentially worth an infinite number of points, because the game ends if it is lost). While this is a good guide, chess is rarely that simple. Many books will give the value of bishops as 3.5 instead of 3, simply because they are often much stronger than knights in endgames and open middle-games.</p>
  <p>There are other things to take into account as well. For example, bishops are much stronger if you own both of yours, but you opponent has already lost/traded one or both of theirs. The nature of the position can also affect the worth of individual pieces, as a position that is completely blocked up might leave a bishop with no useful squares to go to while a knight may be able to jump straight over the obstruction.</p>
  <p>Another example of how the Reinfeld values can be misleading is that 3 minor pieces (bishops and knights) are often more powerful than a single queen, provided that they are used properly.</p>
  <p>For some further reading, you might also want to take a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value</a> which has a much more detailed explanation.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-29T08:10:35.473Z
Answers.Text: "While this is a good guide, chess is rarely that simple." that was in no way the idea of my answer. Thats why I wrote that the evaluation depends on position. And also have extra posted an explanation what was meant
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikroDel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-29T12:13:21.350Z
Answers.Text: Even more detailed than the wikipedia page is Larry Kaufman's [Evaluation of Material Imbalances](http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm).
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-29T13:29:03.927Z
Answers.Text: @MikroDel Yes, that part of my comment was intended to reinforce what you said about Reinfeld's values only being a guide.
Answers.UserDisplayName: DTR
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-30T16:33:10.823Z
Answers.Text: Bishops and Knights are better in closed games, whereas rooks are typically better in open games. Something to consider when trading that knight and bishop for a rook.
Answers.UserDisplayName: MDMoore313
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-06T03:24:43.883Z
Answers.Text: Not a fan of the "king is worth infinite points" bit, because it completely abandons any attempt at gauging the actual relative strength of the king. If all that system does is gauge importance, then wouldn't a lone pawn that's currently positioned to prevent a mate be worth infinite points as well?
Answers.UserDisplayName: arkon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-06T03:38:12.700Z
Answers.Text: @BigHomie Personally I'd be more concerned with your own strengths and weaknesses with each piece, as well as your opponent's, than with how the board is stacked on any given turn.
Answers.UserDisplayName: arkon
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-06T11:00:28.297Z
Answers.Text: @b1nary.atr0phy you're not wrong, but at the same time it's hard to gauge the value of pieces over the entire game. For example, the king is often said to be worth about the same as a rook in many characters but significantly less as an active piece while there are more piecesbon the board. So which value to use? And should we value knights relative to an open, closed, middle game or endhame position? And so on and so forth. For the king especially, you really need to see a position to make a proper estimation of value.
Answers.UserDisplayName: DTR
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-13T04:24:22.223Z
Answers.Text: In chess you can use values to a) find the comparative advantage in a position b) find if a trade is advantageous. These are not exactly the same. E.g. if you have both bishops, the opponent has only one, then trading bishops is not to your advantage. King’s value is irrelevant in both these cases because kings are never traded and their value in valuing a position even out because both sides always have their kings. If one is valuing a flank or value the pieces in the area of action in a pawn end game, probably king's value is useful. I haven't  seen anything like this outside chess engines.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aelian
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-29T07:54:55.373Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:11:26.430Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:11:26.430Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: DTR
Answers.Body: <p><strong>Pawn</strong> - 1 point</p>
  <p><strong>Bishop</strong>, <strong>Knight</strong> - 3 Pawns</p>
  <p><strong>Rook</strong> - 5 Pawns</p>
  <p><strong>Queen</strong> - 9 Pawns</p>
  <p>The evaluation depends on the position.</p>
  <p>In some situation you will find it equal or good to give you Rook and Pawn (6 Pawns) for Bishop and Knight (6 Pawns). But it is also possible that two light pieces are more valuable than Rook and Pawn.</p>
  <p>The value of pieces given to you will be a good <strong>start point</strong> to evaluate your position.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-28T09:21:38.370Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:11:02.537Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:11:02.537Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikroDel
Answers.Body: <p>There's a great analysis/article about this by GM Larry Kaufman available <a href="https://www.danheisman.com/evaluation-of-material-imbalances.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here.</a></p>
  <p>To summarize:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>Pawn = 1</li>
  <li>Knight = Bishop = 3.25</li>
  <li>Bishop Pair = 7(+0.25 for each bishop.)</li>
  <li>Rook = 5</li>
  <li>Queen = 9.75</li>
  </ul>
  <p>There's also a lot more detail in the article about what situations favor which groups of pieces. For example, when B+N is better than R+P, or when Q+P is better than R+R, etc.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-31T21:30:32.180Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:12:22.190Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:12:22.190Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joe K
Answers.Body: <p>Though one cannot trade one's king for other considerations -- and in this sense the king cannot be evaluated -- the king still has a practical strength as an attacking and defending piece in the many concrete positions in which no immediate mate is in view -- especially during the endgame.  This strength can indeed be evaluated.  World Champion Emanuel Lasker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_%28chess%29&amp;oldid=552396027" rel="nofollow noreferrer">regarded the king</a> to be one point stronger than a minor piece.</p>
  <p>Thus, in this sense, if a knight or bishop has a strength of three, and if we accept Lasker's advice, then <em>the king's strength will be four.</em></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-06-05T18:49:26.750Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:12:52.993Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:12:52.993Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.Body: <p>Computer Chess programs provide an <a href="http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Point+Value" rel="nofollow noreferrer">evaluation of pieces relative to the strength of a pawn</a>, which compliment's Dave's answer nicely.  To summarize:</p>
  <h2>Piece: Range of Values</h2>
  <ol>
  <li>Pawn:   100</li>
  <li>Knight: 300-400</li>
  <li>Bishop: 300-400</li>
  <li>Rook:   500-600</li>
  <li>Queen:  880-1200</li>
  <li>King:   10000*</li>
  </ol>
  <p>*Kings are given a large actual value to simplify the search behavior, but essentially have infinite value, as the game ends if they are 'killed'.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-07-31T19:41:54.787Z
Answers.Text: Regarding the King, see thb answer
Answers.UserDisplayName: leonbloy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-05-31T17:33:03.210Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:11:51.833Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:11:51.833Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: tbischel
Answers.Body: <p>The standard is usually to compare pieces to each other (i.e how many pawns is a knight worth, a bishop, a queen etc.?</p>
  
  <p>Another way is to determine piece value dynamically using the idea of <strong>"absolute/potential activity"</strong> and <strong>"nominal activity"</strong>. This idea is based on the number of squares any given piece controls (and I believe is partly how computer engines determine piece values). I believe it is also called <strong>mobility</strong> by some chess players. Let me explain:</p>
  
  <p>First a few definitions (these are my own, created for the sake of the explanation):</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><strong>Activity</strong> = The number of squares any piece controls</li>
  <li><strong>Control</strong> = (referring to squares) when a square(s) cannot be occupied by an opponent piece or pawn due the danger of it being captured</li>
  <li><strong>Center</strong> = The squares e4, d4, e5 and d5 </li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>Each piece (lets ignore pawns for the moment) has an <strong>absolute activity</strong> value and a <strong>nominal activity</strong> value. The Reinfeld system given above is essentially the former, and it describes the value of the piece in its best condition (i.e where it controls the greatest number of squares). For the sake of convenience we can say that this condition is when the piece is in the center, as all pieces control the maximal number of squares when placed there (try it out with a few pieces and see). </p>
  
  <p>We can quickly formulate some absolute activity values for the pieces by counting the number of squares each piece controls when placed in the center (of an empty board):</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><strong>Queen</strong>: Controls <strong>27</strong> squares</li>
  <li><strong>Rook</strong>: Controls <strong>14</strong> squares</li>
  <li><strong>Bishop</strong>: Controls <strong>13</strong> squares</li>
  <li><strong>Knight</strong>: Controls <strong>8</strong> squares</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>*Note that I've omitted the pawn and the king, this is because they are special, and I will deal with them a bit later. </p>
  
  <p>Now looking at the above we see that the Reinfeld scores were more or less based on this derivation, with the apparent exception of the bishop which seems to be closer to a rook than a knight (the thing which is omitted here, is the fact that a bishop can only control squares of one color; hence its low Reinfeld value). </p>
  
  <p>Other common ideas also become clear with this formulation, e.g the idea of the "two bishops" advantage, which, according to this, would be close to a queen in strength! (13*2 = 26). However, this formulation is only half-complete, because in a real game things are rarely so perfect and ideal as an empty board with your pieces huddled in the center. </p>
  
  <p>Thus we introduce the idea of "nominal activity", which is simply the activity of a piece in a given position. Remember that activity = the number of squares a piece controls. Nominal activity can be constantly in flux (since the position is inevitability bound to change) but is a useful concept when compared against the "absolute activity", for three reasons:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>It helps you determine whether to trade pieces (and also <em>which</em> pieces to trade)</li>
  <li>It helps you decide what kinds of positions to create (this is where common chess principles like "knights favor closed positions, bishops favor open ones" come from)</li>
  <li>It helps you figure out which piece's position you need to improve first ("Knights before bishops" comes from this)</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Many, many common ideas can be elucidated from this formulation (mostly because it is so fundamental to the game). Consider the idea of a positional sacrifice, it is simply a move which gives up material in exchange for one's piece(s) to get closer to its(their) absolute activity. </p>
  
  <p>This brings me to the pawns. The pawns don't really have activity in the same way pieces do, instead they are used to determine <strong>terrain</strong>, i.e the "positional factors" on the board which determine nominal activity. In that sense, they are used to limit or increase the nominal activity of <em>other</em> pieces (this why you move the pieces first, then the pawns, because its usually faster to move a piece to a better square than to improve a piece by making a pawn move). Pawns serve other purposes as well, of course, but in the context of this question I think this will suffice.   </p>
  
  <p>So to summarize:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><strong>Absolute activity: the greatest number of squares a piece can potentially control</strong></li>
  <li><strong>Nominal activity: the number of squares a piece controls in a given position</strong></li>
  <li><strong>Piece Value: a dynamic measurement based upon how close a piece's nominal activity is to its absolute activity</strong></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>EDIT:</p>
  
  <p>Notice how easy (and accurate, and logical) piece combination values become when using this system. </p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>2 Rooks (28) > 1 Queen (27)</li>
  <li>2 Knights + 1 Bishop (29) > 1 Queen</li>
  <li>2 Bishops + 1 Knight (34) >> 1 Queen</li>
  <li>2 Bishops (26) >> 2 Knights (16)</li>
  <li>Bishop + Knight (21) >> Rook + pawn (~16)</li>
  <li>etc.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Also notice how nominal activity can help determine which pieces are better in the endgame (the pieces whose nominal activity is greatly affected by pawns will improve in the endgame)</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Bishop (eg ~13) > Knight (eg ~8) </li>
  <li>Rook (eg ~14) &lt; Bishop + pawn(eg ~15) </li>
  <li>etc.</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-24T02:28:43.280Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-03-24T02:40:52.397Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-03-24T02:40:52.397Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dider
Answers.Body: <p>This is a very sensible question for a beginner to ask, but as you progress beyond being a beginner, as I hope you do, you will come to realize that it has no answer.  </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-05T03:22:28.047Z
Answers.Text: I agree. +1. I don't think there's such thing as points in chess. It depends on the position.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-04-03T01:22:18.417Z
Answers.Text: it has answer, it's just different because it's position specific
Answers.UserDisplayName: AnonymousLurker
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-01-05T02:25:17.190Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-01-05T02:25:17.190Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.Body: <p>Dider gives an answer based on the maximum activity of the pieces when they are placed at the center of an empty board.
  One could continue this analysis evaluating the activity at other locations of the board, building an 8x8 matrix for each piece. And comparing two extreme cases: empty board vs fully crowded board.</p>
  
  <p>The resulting matrices are:</p>
  
  <pre><code>    Empty board (free piece)                Crowded board (blocked piece)   
      ------------------------                -----------------------------
  Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x          Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
  Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x          Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x      
  mean = 7/4 squares                      mean=7/4 squares                
  
  kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2          kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2      
          3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3                  3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3                  3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3      
  kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2          kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2      
  mean = 21/4 squares, N~3P               mean=21/4 squares, N~3P             
  
  Bishop  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7          Bishop  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          7  9  9  9  9  9  9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 11 11 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 13 13 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 13 13 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 11 11 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  9  9  9  9  9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
  Bishop  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7          Bishop  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
  mean=35/4 squares, B~5P                 mean=49/16 squares, B~1.75P         
  
  King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3          King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
  King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3          King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3      
  mean=105/16 squares, K~3.75P            mean=105/16 squares, K~3.75P            
  
  Rook    14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14         Rook    2  3  3  3  3  3  3  2      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
  Rook    14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14         Rook    2  3  3  3  3  3  3  2      
  mean=14 squares, R~7P                   mean=7/2 squares, R~2P              
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>The board starts in a "half-crowded" state, and becomes less crowded as the game advances. 
  The numerical values found on books and publications lie between these extreme cases.
  Looking at the high fluctuations, one can understand why so many people say that it all depends (heavily!) on the position.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-25T02:00:22.253Z
Answers.Text: Your bishop on the crowded board looks wrong on the far right side; those 4s should be 2s.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-25T02:11:14.707Z
Answers.Text: And you didn't put the queen in - it would, by this measure, be the sum of the rook and the bishop.  So, between 12 and 3.75 pawns.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-25T03:00:49.730Z
Answers.Text: D M: I have corrected the wrong numbers of the bishop, thanks. According to this model of activity and mobility, the Queen should be the sum Q=R+B. But that is not in accordance with the "official" numbers; the real Queen is usually considered more than R+B, so she must have properties that are not covered by this model.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Diedrsch
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-25T12:50:15.350Z
Answers.Text: Could you clarify what you mean by "crowded board"? The numbers for your crowded board matrices otherwise make no sense to me.
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-25T13:54:57.747Z
Answers.Text: @itub: A completely "crowded" board is only an idealization, because a real board will have at most 32 of the 64 squares occupied. Perhaps we should imagine crowded spots or regions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Diedrsch
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-25T14:12:43.673Z
Answers.Text: For instance, a bishop placed in a crowded spot is fully sorrounded by other pieces (friend or enemy) and cannot use its feature of controlling long diagonals; it can only control the 4 adjacent squares of the same color.
  
  This number 4 turns into a lower 2 if the bishop is at the border and has only 2 neighbors, or 1 if it is at the corner. 
  When the game starts and during the early opening, when the captures have not yet begun, crowded spots are equally frequent as free spots.
  So the "power" of the bishop (according to this model) lies between ~1.75P and ~5P, mean=3.3P
Answers.UserDisplayName: Diedrsch
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-24T19:03:40.030Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-03-25T02:56:26.730Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2018-03-25T02:56:26.730Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Diedrsch
Answers.Body: <p>Initial values are Pawn - 1 point, Bishop, Knight - 3 Pawns, Rook - 5 Pawns, Queen - 9 Pawns.</p>
  <p>These values change in relation to the position and the configuration of pieces on either side.  Pieces on good squares are worth more than pieces on bad squares.  Point count is merely a rough, basic guide to the strength of each side; more important is the placement and activity of the pieces - this is where judgement of material imbalances becomes important.  You can't simply say that a Queen is equal to 3 minor pieces or 2 rooks; the position will dictate the relative values.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-02-04T17:06:55.410Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:14:33.840Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:14:33.840Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: George Miller
Answers.Body: <p>I'd say in general bishops get 3.5 knights 3, queen 9, rooks 5 and the king doesn't get evaluated because, as everyone said he doesn't have a definite value, but you could say he's quite important in the endgame(around practical value 4).</p>
  <p>Now the values <strong>change.</strong>
  So in a closed position knights are stronger than bishops, often stronger than rooks even.
  In half open-open positions bishops are stronger than knights but <strong>2 bishops</strong> basically increase each others strength.</p>
  <p>Another example, in positions with a small number of pawns and light pieces, 2 rooks are often better than a queen, whereas in positions with a lot of other pieces a queen is (most often) better.</p>
  <p>So it all really depends on the position. And my words are true only if you can actually use your pieces as good as possible, or something close to that. :)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-23T22:36:05.457Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:13:45.360Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:13:45.360Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Captain_Shepard
Answers.Body: <p>Chess pieces and their points:</p>
  <pre><code>queen - 9
  rook - 5
  bishop - 3.5
  knight - 3
  pawn - 1
  </code></pre>
  <p>If you need any more help, search on Google for Chess pieces and their points.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-28T18:47:29.023Z
Answers.Text: Even if this is a beginner's approximation (which is good enough for somebody starting out in the game), it is bit inaccurate to assign the king zero points, or for that matter, assign points to a king at all as you don't "use" him to count material trades or captures.
Answers.UserDisplayName: shivsky
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-12T16:50:42.577Z
Answers.Text: Well, @shivsky I am a beginner. But thanks for the information.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TheWildMan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-28T12:21:39.367Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:12:58.477Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:12:58.477Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: TheWildMan
Answers.Body: <p>Queen 10
  Rook 5
  Bishop 3.5
  Knight 3 (debatable)
  Pawn 1</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-05T15:06:57.740Z
Answers.Text: This answer does not give any reasoning or references. However, these precise values are not mentioned in other answers, so it is not a duplicate answer and probably could be improved.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JiK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-07-31T09:26:11.977Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T15:05:32.660Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T15:05:32.660Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Bheki Msomi
Answers.Body: <p>Pawn = 1<br />
  Knight = 3+-1/3<br />
  Bishop = 3+-1/2<br />
  Rook = 5<br />
  Queen = 9<br />
  King = Infinite<br />
  Back when my brother and I played chess in the early-middle 70's (when Fischer &amp; Spasky were all the rage), this is the point system I remember reading about in a book on chess (I can't remember the book).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-08T21:31:31.997Z
Answers.Text: "First Book of Chess"?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Neo1009
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-15T03:33:43.957Z
Answers.Text: Early 70s.. must be playing chess for so many years. Even my elder brother and I playrd chess in 1987 and then till today no games so far..
Answers.UserDisplayName: ShadYantra
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-23T20:31:09.657Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-17T02:13:26.497Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-08-17T02:13:26.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andy
Answers.Body: <p>Value of pieces varies from position to position.
  It's just a random number assigned to them which ideally has no value.
  And if you use so called values then there would be number of shortcomings on combination of pieces.
  For a very basic way, do this:
  Put any piece on one of centre squares on a empty board and count number of squares it controls.
  Pawn: 1
  Knight: 8
  Bishop: 13
  Rook: 14
  Queen: 27
  That's just for very rough idea not in any sense real value.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-15T03:31:32.717Z
Answers.Text: This answer is not based on logical analysis. Modern chess has been subjected to experiments and research by many researchers and even mathematics experts.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ShadYantra
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-26T11:56:03.507Z
Answers.Text: @ShadYantra As I said that it's not real and give than very rough estimation which is also actually nothing. Main thing is it depends on position which is absolutely correct.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sparsh Sharma
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-26T16:19:23.673Z
Answers.Text: And what about the real games played on Dashpaad (10x10) boards. How will you analyze the pieces.. Impossible!!
Answers.UserDisplayName: ShadYantra
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-08-05T13:50:27.657Z
Answers.Text: @ShadYantra You don't seem to read properly. I already said that the values are purely relative as it only depends on position but for a moment I am giving a very rough (which actually doesn't make sense but comparisons is all about assumptions) idea of pieces. I already said that it is no serious talk.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sparsh Sharma
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-08-05T14:02:25.327Z
Answers.Text: Hmm. I agreed and never said you were wrong.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ShadYantra
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-13T22:28:16.707Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-07-13T22:28:16.707Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Sparsh Sharma
Body: <p>I am a beginner at chess; please answer this question for me.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>How many points is each chess piece worth?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Tags: <evaluation><pieces><point-value>
Title: How many points is each chess piece worth?
ThreadText: # How many points is each chess piece worth?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-05-28)
  
  I am a beginner at chess; please answer this question for me.
  
  > How many points is each chess piece worth?
  
  **Tags:** evaluation, pieces, point-value
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 14 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-05-29. Score: 39
  
  The answer by username_2 gives the commonly-used "Reinfeld values" of pawn=1, bishop=knight=3, rook=5, and queen=9 (kings are essentially worth an infinite number of points, because the game ends if it is lost). While this is a good guide, chess is rarely that simple. Many books will give the value of bishops as 3.5 instead of 3, simply because they are often much stronger than knights in endgames and open middle-games.
  
  There are other things to take into account as well. For example, bishops are much stronger if you own both of yours, but you opponent has already lost/traded one or both of theirs. The nature of the position can also affect the worth of individual pieces, as a position that is completely blocked up might leave a bishop with no useful squares to go to while a knight may be able to jump straight over the obstruction.
  
  Another example of how the Reinfeld values can be misleading is that 3 minor pieces (bishops and knights) are often more powerful than a single queen, provided that they are used properly.
  
  For some further reading, you might also want to take a look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value> which has a much more detailed explanation.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: "While this is a good guide, chess is rarely that simple." that was in no way the idea of my answer. Thats why I wrote that the evaluation depends on position. And also have extra posted an explanation what was meant  
  > **username_3**: Even more detailed than the wikipedia page is Larry Kaufman's [Evaluation of Material Imbalances](http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm).  
  > **username_1**: @username_2 Yes, that part of my comment was intended to reinforce what you said about Reinfeld's values only being a guide.  
  > **username_4**: Bishops and Knights are better in closed games, whereas rooks are typically better in open games. Something to consider when trading that knight and bishop for a rook.  
  > **username_5**: Not a fan of the "king is worth infinite points" bit, because it completely abandons any attempt at gauging the actual relative strength of the king. If all that system does is gauge importance, then wouldn't a lone pawn that's currently positioned to prevent a mate be worth infinite points as well?  
  > **username_5**: @BigHomie Personally I'd be more concerned with your own strengths and weaknesses with each piece, as well as your opponent's, than with how the board is stacked on any given turn.  
  > **username_1**: @b1nary.atr0phy you're not wrong, but at the same time it's hard to gauge the value of pieces over the entire game. For example, the king is often said to be worth about the same as a rook in many characters but significantly less as an active piece while there are more piecesbon the board. So which value to use? And should we value knights relative to an open, closed, middle game or endhame position? And so on and so forth. For the king especially, you really need to see a position to make a proper estimation of value.  
  > **username_6**: In chess you can use values to a) find the comparative advantage in a position b) find if a trade is advantageous. These are not exactly the same. E.g. if you have both bishops, the opponent has only one, then trading bishops is not to your advantage. King’s value is irrelevant in both these cases because kings are never traded and their value in valuing a position even out because both sides always have their kings. If one is valuing a flank or value the pieces in the area of action in a pawn end game, probably king's value is useful. I haven't  seen anything like this outside chess engines.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2013-05-28. Score: 19
  
  **Pawn** - 1 point
  
  **Bishop**, **Knight** - 3 Pawns
  
  **Rook** - 5 Pawns
  
  **Queen** - 9 Pawns
  
  The evaluation depends on the position.
  
  In some situation you will find it equal or good to give you Rook and Pawn (6 Pawns) for Bishop and Knight (6 Pawns). But it is also possible that two light pieces are more valuable than Rook and Pawn.
  
  The value of pieces given to you will be a good **start point** to evaluate your position.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2013-05-31. Score: 16
  
  There's a great analysis/article about this by GM Larry Kaufman available [here.](https://www.danheisman.com/evaluation-of-material-imbalances.html)
  
  To summarize:
  
  * Pawn = 1
  * Knight = Bishop = 3.25
  * Bishop Pair = 7(+0.25 for each bishop.)
  * Rook = 5
  * Queen = 9.75
  
  There's also a lot more detail in the article about what situations favor which groups of pieces. For example, when B+N is better than R+P, or when Q+P is better than R+R, etc.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2015-03-24. Score: 10
  
  The standard is usually to compare pieces to each other (i.e how many pawns is a knight worth, a bishop, a queen etc.?
  
  Another way is to determine piece value dynamically using the idea of **"absolute/potential activity"** and **"nominal activity"**. This idea is based on the number of squares any given piece controls (and I believe is partly how computer engines determine piece values). I believe it is also called **mobility** by some chess players. Let me explain:
  
  First a few definitions (these are my own, created for the sake of the explanation):
  
  1. **Activity** = The number of squares any piece controls
  2. **Control** = (referring to squares) when a square(s) cannot be occupied by an opponent piece or pawn due the danger of it being captured
  3. **Center** = The squares e4, d4, e5 and d5
  
  Each piece (lets ignore pawns for the moment) has an **absolute activity** value and a **nominal activity** value. The Reinfeld system given above is essentially the former, and it describes the value of the piece in its best condition (i.e where it controls the greatest number of squares). For the sake of convenience we can say that this condition is when the piece is in the center, as all pieces control the maximal number of squares when placed there (try it out with a few pieces and see).
  
  We can quickly formulate some absolute activity values for the pieces by counting the number of squares each piece controls when placed in the center (of an empty board):
  
  * **Queen**: Controls **27** squares
  * **Rook**: Controls **14** squares
  * **Bishop**: Controls **13** squares
  * **Knight**: Controls **8** squares
  
  \*Note that I've omitted the pawn and the king, this is because they are special, and I will deal with them a bit later.
  
  Now looking at the above we see that the Reinfeld scores were more or less based on this derivation, with the apparent exception of the bishop which seems to be closer to a rook than a knight (the thing which is omitted here, is the fact that a bishop can only control squares of one color; hence its low Reinfeld value).
  
  Other common ideas also become clear with this formulation, e.g the idea of the "two bishops" advantage, which, according to this, would be close to a queen in strength! (13\*2 = 26). However, this formulation is only half-complete, because in a real game things are rarely so perfect and ideal as an empty board with your pieces huddled in the center.
  
  Thus we introduce the idea of "nominal activity", which is simply the activity of a piece in a given position. Remember that activity = the number of squares a piece controls. Nominal activity can be constantly in flux (since the position is inevitability bound to change) but is a useful concept when compared against the "absolute activity", for three reasons:
  
  * It helps you determine whether to trade pieces (and also *which* pieces to trade)
  * It helps you decide what kinds of positions to create (this is where common chess principles like "knights favor closed positions, bishops favor open ones" come from)
  * It helps you figure out which piece's position you need to improve first ("Knights before bishops" comes from this)
  
  Many, many common ideas can be elucidated from this formulation (mostly because it is so fundamental to the game). Consider the idea of a positional sacrifice, it is simply a move which gives up material in exchange for one's piece(s) to get closer to its(their) absolute activity.
  
  This brings me to the pawns. The pawns don't really have activity in the same way pieces do, instead they are used to determine **terrain**, i.e the "positional factors" on the board which determine nominal activity. In that sense, they are used to limit or increase the nominal activity of *other* pieces (this why you move the pieces first, then the pawns, because its usually faster to move a piece to a better square than to improve a piece by making a pawn move). Pawns serve other purposes as well, of course, but in the context of this question I think this will suffice.
  
  So to summarize:
  
  1. **Absolute activity: the greatest number of squares a piece can potentially control**
  2. **Nominal activity: the number of squares a piece controls in a given position**
  3. **Piece Value: a dynamic measurement based upon how close a piece's nominal activity is to its absolute activity**
  
  EDIT:
  
  Notice how easy (and accurate, and logical) piece combination values become when using this system.
  
  * 2 Rooks (28) > 1 Queen (27)
  * 2 Knights + 1 Bishop (29) > 1 Queen
  * 2 Bishops + 1 Knight (34) >> 1 Queen
  * 2 Bishops (26) >> 2 Knights (16)
  * Bishop + Knight (21) >> Rook + pawn (~16)
  * etc.
  
  Also notice how nominal activity can help determine which pieces are better in the endgame (the pieces whose nominal activity is greatly affected by pawns will improve in the endgame)
  
  * Bishop (eg ~13) > Knight (eg ~8)
  * Rook (eg ~14) < Bishop + pawn(eg ~15)
  * etc.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2013-06-05. Score: 9
  
  Though one cannot trade one's king for other considerations -- and in this sense the king cannot be evaluated -- the king still has a practical strength as an attacking and defending piece in the many concrete positions in which no immediate mate is in view -- especially during the endgame. This strength can indeed be evaluated. World Champion Emanuel Lasker [regarded the king](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_%28chess%29&oldid=552396027) to be one point stronger than a minor piece.
  
  Thus, in this sense, if a knight or bishop has a strength of three, and if we accept Lasker's advice, then *the king's strength will be four.*
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2013-05-31. Score: 9
  
  Computer Chess programs provide an [evaluation of pieces relative to the strength of a pawn](http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Point+Value), which compliment's Dave's answer nicely. To summarize:
  
  ## Piece: Range of Values
  
  1. Pawn: 100
  2. Knight: 300-400
  3. Bishop: 300-400
  4. Rook: 500-600
  5. Queen: 880-1200
  6. King: 10000\*
  
  \*Kings are given a large actual value to simplify the search behavior, but essentially have infinite value, as the game ends if they are 'killed'.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: Regarding the King, see thb answer  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2018-01-05. Score: 4
  
  This is a very sensible question for a beginner to ask, but as you progress beyond being a beginner, as I hope you do, you will come to realize that it has no answer.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_13**: I agree. +1. I don't think there's such thing as points in chess. It depends on the position.  
  > **username_14**: it has answer, it's just different because it's position specific  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_15 on 2018-03-24. Score: 4
  
  username_11 gives an answer based on the maximum activity of the pieces when they are placed at the center of an empty board.
  One could continue this analysis evaluating the activity at other locations of the board, building an 8x8 matrix for each piece. And comparing two extreme cases: empty board vs fully crowded board.
  
  The resulting matrices are:
  
  ```
      Empty board (free piece)                Crowded board (blocked piece)   
      ------------------------                -----------------------------
  Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x          Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1                  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
  Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x          Pawn    x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x      
  mean = 7/4 squares                      mean=7/4 squares                
  
  kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2          kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2      
          3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3                  3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4                  4  6  8  8  8  8  6  4      
          3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3                  3  4  6  6  6  6  4  3      
  kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2          kNight  2  3  4  4  4  4  3  2      
  mean = 21/4 squares, N~3P               mean=21/4 squares, N~3P             
  
  Bishop  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7          Bishop  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
          7  9  9  9  9  9  9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 11 11 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 13 13 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 13 13 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  11 11 11 11 9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
          7  9  9  9  9  9  9  7                  2  4  4  4  4  4  4  2      
  Bishop  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7          Bishop  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  1      
  mean=35/4 squares, B~5P                 mean=49/16 squares, B~1.75P         
  
  King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3          King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
          5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5                  5  8  8  8  8  8  8  5      
  King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3          King    3  5  5  5  5  5  5  3      
  mean=105/16 squares, K~3.75P            mean=105/16 squares, K~3.75P            
  
  Rook    14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14         Rook    2  3  3  3  3  3  3  2      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
          14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14                 3  4  4  4  4  4  4  3      
  Rook    14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14         Rook    2  3  3  3  3  3  3  2      
  mean=14 squares, R~7P                   mean=7/2 squares, R~2P              
  
  ```
  
  The board starts in a "half-crowded" state, and becomes less crowded as the game advances.
  The numerical values found on books and publications lie between these extreme cases.
  Looking at the high fluctuations, one can understand why so many people say that it all depends (heavily!) on the position.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_16**: Your bishop on the crowded board looks wrong on the far right side; those 4s should be 2s.  
  > **username_16**: And you didn't put the queen in - it would, by this measure, be the sum of the rook and the bishop.  So, between 12 and 3.75 pawns.  
  > **username_15**: D M: I have corrected the wrong numbers of the bishop, thanks. According to this model of activity and mobility, the Queen should be the sum Q=R+B. But that is not in accordance with the "official" numbers; the real Queen is usually considered more than R+B, so she must have properties that are not covered by this model.  
  > **username_17**: Could you clarify what you mean by "crowded board"? The numbers for your crowded board matrices otherwise make no sense to me.  
  > **username_15**: @username_17: A completely "crowded" board is only an idealization, because a real board will have at most 32 of the 64 squares occupied. Perhaps we should imagine crowded spots or regions.  
  > **username_15**: For instance, a bishop placed in a crowded spot is fully sorrounded by other pieces (friend or enemy) and cannot use its feature of controlling long diagonals; it can only control the 4 adjacent squares of the same color.  This number 4 turns into a lower 2 if the bishop is at the border and has only 2 neighbors, or 1 if it is at the corner.  When the game starts and during the early opening, when the captures have not yet begun, crowded spots are equally frequent as free spots. So the "power" of the bishop (according to this model) lies between ~1.75P and ~5P, mean=3.3P  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_18 on 2019-02-04. Score: 3
  
  Initial values are Pawn - 1 point, Bishop, Knight - 3 Pawns, Rook - 5 Pawns, Queen - 9 Pawns.
  
  These values change in relation to the position and the configuration of pieces on either side. Pieces on good squares are worth more than pieces on bad squares. Point count is merely a rough, basic guide to the strength of each side; more important is the placement and activity of the pieces - this is where judgement of material imbalances becomes important. You can't simply say that a Queen is equal to 3 minor pieces or 2 rooks; the position will dictate the relative values.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_19 on 2015-03-23. Score: 3
  
  I'd say in general bishops get 3.5 knights 3, queen 9, rooks 5 and the king doesn't get evaluated because, as everyone said he doesn't have a definite value, but you could say he's quite important in the endgame(around practical value 4).
  
  Now the values **change.**
  So in a closed position knights are stronger than bishops, often stronger than rooks even.
  In half open-open positions bishops are stronger than knights but **2 bishops** basically increase each others strength.
  
  Another example, in positions with a small number of pawns and light pieces, 2 rooks are often better than a queen, whereas in positions with a lot of other pieces a queen is (most often) better.
  
  So it all really depends on the position. And my words are true only if you can actually use your pieces as good as possible, or something close to that. :)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_20 on 2013-12-28. Score: 2
  
  Chess pieces and their points:
  
  ```
  queen - 9
  rook - 5
  bishop - 3.5
  knight - 3
  pawn - 1
  
  ```
  
  If you need any more help, search on Google for Chess pieces and their points.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_21**: Even if this is a beginner's approximation (which is good enough for somebody starting out in the game), it is bit inaccurate to assign the king zero points, or for that matter, assign points to a king at all as you don't "use" him to count material trades or captures.  
  > **username_20**: Well, @username_21 I am a beginner. But thanks for the information.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_22 on 2014-07-31. Score: 2
  
  Queen 10
  Rook 5
  Bishop 3.5
  Knight 3 (debatable)
  Pawn 1
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_23**: This answer does not give any reasoning or references. However, these precise values are not mentioned in other answers, so it is not a duplicate answer and probably could be improved.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_24 on 2015-03-23. Score: 2
  
  Pawn = 1  
  Knight = 3+-1/3  
  Bishop = 3+-1/2  
  Rook = 5  
  Queen = 9  
  King = Infinite  
  Back when my brother and I played chess in the early-middle 70's (when Fischer & Spasky were all the rage), this is the point system I remember reading about in a book on chess (I can't remember the book).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_25**: "First Book of Chess"?  
  > **username_26**: Early 70s.. must be playing chess for so many years. Even my elder brother and I playrd chess in 1987 and then till today no games so far..  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_27 on 2022-07-13. Score: -3
  
  Value of pieces varies from position to position.
  It's just a random number assigned to them which ideally has no value.
  And if you use so called values then there would be number of shortcomings on combination of pieces.
  For a very basic way, do this:
  Put any piece on one of centre squares on a empty board and count number of squares it controls.
  Pawn: 1
  Knight: 8
  Bishop: 13
  Rook: 14
  Queen: 27
  That's just for very rough idea not in any sense real value.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_26**: This answer is not based on logical analysis. Modern chess has been subjected to experiments and research by many researchers and even mathematics experts.  
  > **username_27**: @username_26 As I said that it's not real and give than very rough estimation which is also actually nothing. Main thing is it depends on position which is absolutely correct.  
  > **username_26**: And what about the real games played on Dashpaad (10x10) boards. How will you analyze the pieces.. Impossible!!  
  > **username_27**: @username_26 You don't seem to read properly. I already said that the values are purely relative as it only depends on position but for a moment I am giving a very rough (which actually doesn't make sense but comparisons is all about assumptions) idea of pieces. I already said that it is no serious talk.  
  > **username_26**: Hmm. I agreed and never said you were wrong.  
  
  ---
  
  