Pieces Value
Sort:
The rook is generally thought to be worth closer to 5 than 4. A rook will do better than one minor piece (bishop or knight) plus one pawn. The minor pieces (bishop and knight) are worth just slightly more than 3. 3 Minor pieces (BBN or BNN) can outperform a queen. One thing that many new players don't pick up on right away is that two minor pieces are stronger than one rook.
Larry Kaufman studied this in great detail and his full article can be found on danheisman.home.comcast.net
I think you will find the following is more accurate;
Q = 9.75
R = 5
B/N = 3.25
BB pair = 0.5
Pawn = 1
See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_point_value for all the references, for the knight/bishop being worth a little more than 3, you're disagreeing with the following: Emmanual Lasker, GM Larry Evans, Max Euwe, and Bobby Fischer.
Also referenced in the Wiki article is one of the most comprehensive studies of database games that was performed by IM Larry Kaufman (also a very strong GO player and somewhat famous in the world of Computer Science). He gave values of the knight and bishop at 3.25 based on results in thousands of games between FMs, IMs, and GMs.
The Wiki also cites World Correspondence Champion Hans Berliner's values "based on experience and computer experiments" where he gives the knight 3.2 and the bishop 3.33.
Guess the book I read was a bit off.
rich wrote: The king is the most inportant piece but it's going off power.
Even so , the king is at least equal to a knight , which is 3 . Throw it in the trash . 
the trouble with the point system for the pieces is you have to take into account the position on the board sometimes a lowly pawn can be worth way more then a queen.
The book I read was pretty old I bet thats why.
No it was a Tutorial to chess book (I read it even though I knew how to play but wanted to see if I could learn something new).
Markle wrote:
the trouble with the point system for the pieces is you have to take into account the position on the board sometimes a lowly pawn can be worth way more then a queen.
Of course the point system is not a global solution to chess strategy and tactics. Duh. But it does give a very good picture of the general strength and capabilities of the pieces. In this way it's a good first step towards chess strategy.
I think one should not just take the point system on blind faith though. A player who wishes to improve should investigate the reasonableness of the relative point values. For example, play a position against a computer where each side has a king and 4 or 5 pawns but one side has a bishop and the other a rook. Then try knight vs. rook. These are just simple examples, in complex middle games, the relative values of the pieces can be difficult to determine, but if you work at it, it might help your chess improve along the way.
True. I agree with you. After seeing so many comments I think everyone has in there mind the value of each piece from their own point of view. It can vary from the situation of the game. Basicaly, everyone values different pieces higher then others at different times and situations.
benws wrote: The king is worth at least a billion points, since if you lose him, you lose the game. if you lose a knight or bishop then you don't necessarily lose the game.
True but you lose an advantage then.
Jan 2, 2008
0
#14
True: The King is worth the game.
True: The King is worth anywhere between 1 and 5 point.
How can this be? One comparison is assuming the loss of the King, the other is comparing the King's fighting power. You must seperate these two in the discussion because they are not the same.
rich> I never trade a bishop for a knight
Be flexible... rules that say always or never tend to lose games. Heck, sometimes trading a bishop for a pawn is the right idea... for example in a B+N+P vs B endgame.
The king , in fighting power alone, is worth a minor piece. On an empty board the king (from any of the extended center squares) has 8 possible moves, so does the knight. Ofcourse the king cannot move into check. There is a lot of dogma in chess and you have to be careful not to get caught up in the dogma. If you never trade a bishop for a knight you are caught up is some dogma already. 
but rich could a bishop ever do a royal family fork what the knights do.this is how it must be done the knight must be attacking the rook, queen, and king putting him in check.
I love people who reply to the initial post without reading the thread to see if their point just might have been made already.
rich> But the best question is which is worth most 1 bishop and 1 rook, or 1 queen ?
Queen = 9.75. Rook = 5.00. Bishop = 3.25. A queen is generally stronger than a rook and bishop. Endgame statistics also confirm this--a queen beats a rook and bishop 72% of the time. Of course, it's often not an easy ending!! Queen vs 2 Rooks is a closer battle. :)
rich > Do say the bishop is only worth 3.25., because It's some lot limited it's colour ?
The value "3.25" was derived from an objective statistical analysis of millions of games, not by any subjective reasoning. Here's the original paper with some extra annotations by Dan Heisman in case you're interested.
This is a good thing to know in case you ever have to sacrfice something for something. The pieces ranked from highest to lowest (excluding the king).
Queen: 9 points
Rook: 4 points
Bishop: 3 points
Knight: 3 points
Pawn: 1 point
These are useful when you are sacrficing something for something else. For Example:
Opponent uses rook to take your bishop. On the next move, without any interference, you take his rook. You have the advantage cause you took a higher piece.
But say you lose a knight and for taking an opponents pawn, they have the advantage (This is obvious).
An Even exchange would be a rook for a rook or a queen for a queen (this is a lose for both sides but, if you opponent is deadly with a queen it is a good idea).
Hope this helps your game improve.