Ugh, proof that just because you're good at chess doesn't make you a good teacher. There are multiple issues with this.
Let's start with the king being infinite value and bishops are better than knights because "the position is not always open" which is not a reason... (the reason the OP was trying to explain is that bishops are better in open positions and that as a game progresses the position tends to open up).
I have a handful of other corrections if you want... not that it matters. N00bs drool over titles, so he could post BS and be praised for "good advice."
And if the flag weren't from a country with native English speakers I wouldn't mind but...
Hi my fellow chess lovers! I've put together a guide to better understand piece/material value based on my experience as an IM and research, which should help you identify good and bad trades to win more games.
Here's the video, which has explanations, illustrations, and some bad jokes: https://youtu.be/pjSJk8H8RL8
For those of you who prefer a long read, see the notes below, but I'd still recommend the vid as it's got much more detail and the illustrations/examples help a lot.
Good luck achieving your chess goals!
Piece values:
Pawns weakest 1
Knights and Bishops similar 3
Rooks are stronger 5
Queens clearly strongest, as she's essentially a rook and a bishop 9
King is Priceless, so he gets a sideways 8
*Chess terminology: Knights and Bishops are “Minor Pieces”, Rooks and Queens are “Major Pieces”
Why are rooks stronger than bishops and knights?
Generally, rooks control more squares.
In fact, on an open board, rooks always control 14 squares
Bishops control between 7-13
Knights control between 2-8
Bishops can only ever control half of the board (light or dark squares), but rooks and knights can control every square
Can mate with King + Rook, but not King + Bishop or King + Knight
What about bishops vs knights?
Based on just square control on an open board, bishops are better and are long range, but:
Knights are a different breed being the only piece that can jump over pieces
The position is not always open
Knights can control every square
These roughly balance each other out, so bishops and knights are considered similar value for beginners.
Ok, 1,3,5,9 is a great starting point, but it leaves many questions unanswered and will only take you so far.
It does depend on the position but in general, bishops are undisputedly better than knights
It’s just a fact, like Messi is better than Ronaldo (sorry couldn’t resist, ignore this), and if you don't believe me, that's fair enough but you should believe these guys who all value bishop more (full details in video):
Fischer – Former World Champion and a GOAT
Kasparov – Former World Champion and a GOAT
Stockfish – Strongest conventional chess engine (depends heavily on position, these are endgame valuations)
Alphazero – Strongest AI chess engine (doesn’t actually assign values, back calculated from Alpha zero games, link is in description if you’re a maths geek like me)
Also, based on 4M+ games in Caissabase (mainly 2100+ over the board players)
Two Bishops vs Bishop + Knight: 41% Win, 32% Draw, 27% Loss
Two Bishops vs Two Knights: 46% Win, 30% Draw, 23% Loss
Some Rationale:
Can force checkmate with King + two Bishops, but not King + two Knights
Bishops can dominate knights (e.g. Knight on e1, Bishop on e4). Even if not fully dominating, easier to counter a knight with a bishop with that same geometry
The two-bishop combination is overpowered (see data above) – can control every square, and completely dominate the board when coordinated in an open position. Grandmasters generally value the bishop pair as half a pawn
Bishops are more versatile, they can contribute to fights on multiple fronts, and are less reliant on having outposts like knights thanks to the long range
For simplicity, I recommend using Fischer’s valuations, increasing the bishop value to 3.25.
This is what I personally use, and many strong Grandmasters use as a guideline – just one moderation from the beginner 1,3,5,9 but a very important one.
Just like how a sword is better in close quarters than a bow and arrow, but pretty useless at long range. Simple example is a knight is better in closed positions, whilst bishops are better in open positions. Chess is super complex with every position being different, but some general situational concepts are summarised nicely in the video, or see the image for this post - of course there are always exceptions as every position is different.
Some additional points:
Bishops are worth more when you have both. If one is traded, the other loses some value, so try to trade a knight for your opponent’s bishop pair and keep your own
Bishops are highly dependent on pawn positions – good Bishops have friendly pawns on opposite coloured squares, whereas if pawns are on the same coloured squares that’s a bad Bishop as he’s blocked in (I call them tall pawns). If you have a Bad bishop, try to either activate it or trade it off, and keep your opponent’s bad Bishop on the board.
Before you castle, unmoved rooks have an additional unique value in that they offer the option to castle. Alpha zero classic games value Rooks at 5.63, whereas in no-castle (castling not allowed) games, Rooks are valued at much less, 5.02
Where the total points are roughly equal, but the pieces are different.
Some of the most common imbalances in approximate descending order are:
Rook + Pawn vs Knight + Bishop (or 2 minors)
Queen + Pawn vs 2 Rooks
Minor Piece vs 3 Pawns
Queen vs Minor Piece + Rook + Pawn
Queen vs 3 Minor Pieces
Let’s call left side with the bigger piece “big side” and right side with the smaller piece “small side”
Knight and Bishop are stronger than Rook + Pawn
Stop making this exchange! As you now know, you are trading c. 6.25 for 6.
And usually knights and bishops are stronger than rooks in openings and middlegames
Generally, Rook + 2 Pawns for Knight and Bishop is a fairer trade
Co-ordination is the key factor
Golden Rule: If the smaller pieces are coordinated, small side wins, otherwise big side comes up on top
Example 1: Queen cannot defend a pawn against two coordinated rooks, but can fork and wreak havoc against disco-ordinated rooks
Example 2: 3 connected passed pawns can’t be stopped by a minor piece, but 3 isolated pawns will be easily mopped up
So before you make these exchanges, always consider how coordinated small side can be after the exchange.
Once you enter battles with material imbalances, if you’re small side you should be focusing on coordination, and if you’re big side you should be a right pain - sleep with enemy pieces to cause internal conflict and disarray
Advanced Concept of the coordinating piece
Often small side has a key piece which enables co-ordination. In this case, small side should try to keep the coordinating piece on the board.
Classic example is Rook + Rook + Pawn vs Rook + Knight + Bishop
Small side’s rook is coordinating piece, and if it gets traded often the tide turns and big side does better in Rook + Pawn vs Knight + Bishop only
Doubt many of you will reach the end! But if you did, you are the real GOATs so thanks for reading. Please do share your thoughts, and follow/subscribe to the channel for more chess content. Would love to hear your suggestions on what content you'd like to see more of.
I've also compiled a list of top 10 chess mistakes if you're interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/mnokuh/10_most_common_game_losing_mistakes_from_a_2400/
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value for Fischer, Kasparov, Stockfish & Alphazero valuations
Chess Digits. Material imbalances and game outcomes. Retrieved on 8th April 2021 from https://web.chessdigits.com/articles/material-imbalances-and-game-outcomes