Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 07:07:52 08/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2004 at 06:24:12, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On August 03, 2004 at 05:48:15, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>On August 03, 2004 at 04:54:11, morphy wrote: >> >>>Why the valutation is always referred to the material advantage (where a pawn in >>>more is the unit) and we can't have a valutation in tems of percentage of >>>probability for winning and drawing? >> >>Maybe you find some answers at R. Scharnagl's SMIRF sites: >> >>http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachwert1_e.html >>and following. > >At this site, there is listing of piece valuations by C. Posthoff: > >Pawn 1.00 >Knight 3.00 >Bishop 3.00 >King (100) >Rook 5.00 >Queen 9.00 > >Now it is possible for one side to have: > >9 Queens 9x9.00 = 81.00 >2 Rooks 2x5.00 = 10.00 >2 Bishops 2x3.00 = 6.00 >2 Knights 2x3.00 = 6.00 > Total = 103.00 >Which means all these units are worth more than a King! :) > >The practical importance of this is negligible, but in theory, the King ought >be worth more than 103.00 I would think. The value of a king has been calculated, because of its positional influence. That aspects are not yet introduced on my page. But of course such influences are inverse proportional to the average piece exchange values (even then, if a king cannot be exchanged). Simply imagine a chess variant with a newly added piece looking like and moving like a king, but which could not be threatened by check but be captured instead. The value specified is for a clone like that. We learn from that all, that the positional influences of pawns is far bigger than those from sliding pieces. The pawns are the soul of the game of chess Reinhard.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.