E.x. If I use two bishops and two knights to capture a queen, all those four pieces are worth 12 points total. Since the queen is worth nine points, would it be worth it to capture the queen or would it be a loss?
Yeah that's a bad trade. Points are more of a guideline; the value of the pieces changes depending on how useful or burdensome they are for each player. A realistic trade would be three pieces (or two rooks) for the queen, but this only works if the other guy can't coordinate his pieces (or rooks) in a quick enough and useful way. Sometimes you want to be the guy with the queen, and others the one with the two rooks. Don't do this kind of trade just because you can; it's like trading a piece for three pawns.
@kit_kat1122 said in #1:
> E.x. If I use two bishops and two knights to capture a queen, all those four pieces are worth 12 points total. Since the queen is worth nine points, would it be worth it to capture the queen or would it be a loss?
In almost all cases, you would not want to do this unless it leads to a mating attack or a tactic where you can win back some material. Being able to trade four pieces for a queen is very rare though. Trading three pieces for a queen is more common (though still rare), and usually the three pieces are better than the queen. Similarly, two pieces are usually better than a rook and a pawn even though the point value is equal, but it depends on the position.
This is the key point: the points are a guideline that work in *most* cases, but it all depends on the position. You need to look at not only how good your piece is versus the opponents piece, but also its potential--how good it can become. This is easier said than done, but there are plenty of resources on YouTube, books, courses, etc. that can help you.
You also shouldn't make a trade for no reason. For example, usually you don't want to trade a bishop for a knight if you don't have a good reason, such as damaging your opponents pawn structure, removing a defender of the king, trading off your own bad bishop, etc. Or maybe you're already up in material and you just want to trade into an endgame, which can also be a valid reason for trading or even sacrificing material.
At your level, you should probably be focusing on eliminating tactical blunders before you work more on positional strategy though. Puzzles and playing longer time controls can help with this.
> E.x. If I use two bishops and two knights to capture a queen, all those four pieces are worth 12 points total. Since the queen is worth nine points, would it be worth it to capture the queen or would it be a loss?
In almost all cases, you would not want to do this unless it leads to a mating attack or a tactic where you can win back some material. Being able to trade four pieces for a queen is very rare though. Trading three pieces for a queen is more common (though still rare), and usually the three pieces are better than the queen. Similarly, two pieces are usually better than a rook and a pawn even though the point value is equal, but it depends on the position.
This is the key point: the points are a guideline that work in *most* cases, but it all depends on the position. You need to look at not only how good your piece is versus the opponents piece, but also its potential--how good it can become. This is easier said than done, but there are plenty of resources on YouTube, books, courses, etc. that can help you.
You also shouldn't make a trade for no reason. For example, usually you don't want to trade a bishop for a knight if you don't have a good reason, such as damaging your opponents pawn structure, removing a defender of the king, trading off your own bad bishop, etc. Or maybe you're already up in material and you just want to trade into an endgame, which can also be a valid reason for trading or even sacrificing material.
At your level, you should probably be focusing on eliminating tactical blunders before you work more on positional strategy though. Puzzles and playing longer time controls can help with this.
Also point values are not even accurate. Two light pieces is worth about rook and 1.5 pawns. There several of these point counts all have shortcomings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value
most "scienfistic" study of those is by kaufman
web.archive.org/web/20060629013845/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Detaing stuff like having two rooks when opponent has one it is often beneficial to trade the extra rook. So it is always down pariculars of the position
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value
most "scienfistic" study of those is by kaufman
web.archive.org/web/20060629013845/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
Detaing stuff like having two rooks when opponent has one it is often beneficial to trade the extra rook. So it is always down pariculars of the position
The "point values" are only a hint to give beginners some basic idea how valuable are different pieces. Later on, it should be replaced by a practical experience, you'll "just know" that most of the time, rook is better than a minor piece but not so much when a pawn or two come with the minor piece; that two minor pieces are usually better choice than a rook etc.
But it always depends on a position. Even a question if it's beneficial to trade a knight for a bishop can be quite complicated as value of each depends heavily on the position and bishop's value depends a lot on its placement and pawn structure (the concept of "good/bad bishop"). One of the books I'm studying now is John Nunn's Understanding Chess Middlegames and big part of the book is devoted to the topic of material imbalances and dealing with them, showing that even seemingly clear cases like being an exchange up can require precise play to be converted. And when you look at annotated grandmaster games, you often read statements like "White gave up a bishop but has more than enough compensation."
So while it would seem nice to have a simple scale "pawn is one point, bishop is three points, etc." and just sum up the values, in practice it's not as simple as that and you cannot really fix it by assigning better designed values to the pieces. And it's actually good thing that it does not work like that as it's part of what makes chess more interesting.
But it always depends on a position. Even a question if it's beneficial to trade a knight for a bishop can be quite complicated as value of each depends heavily on the position and bishop's value depends a lot on its placement and pawn structure (the concept of "good/bad bishop"). One of the books I'm studying now is John Nunn's Understanding Chess Middlegames and big part of the book is devoted to the topic of material imbalances and dealing with them, showing that even seemingly clear cases like being an exchange up can require precise play to be converted. And when you look at annotated grandmaster games, you often read statements like "White gave up a bishop but has more than enough compensation."
So while it would seem nice to have a simple scale "pawn is one point, bishop is three points, etc." and just sum up the values, in practice it's not as simple as that and you cannot really fix it by assigning better designed values to the pieces. And it's actually good thing that it does not work like that as it's part of what makes chess more interesting.
To study this question, have a look at round 7 of the candidates between Nepo and Nakamura. (;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=918mUnQxedM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=918mUnQxedM
I think it's a very good guideline at your rating level yes. You can play around with saccing a minor piece to open up the other king if you want but otherwise I would more or less follow the points. You can also sac a pawn or two for activity but don't do it recklessly imo.
Also I would say it's easier to play queen than two rooks / three pieces (just zoom around looking for forks basically, whereas the other side has to use careful coordination and slowly build up the pressure without allowing forks), so the side with the queen will be favored at your rating level (and even quite a bit higher), but it can be good practice ig.
Also I would say it's easier to play queen than two rooks / three pieces (just zoom around looking for forks basically, whereas the other side has to use careful coordination and slowly build up the pressure without allowing forks), so the side with the queen will be favored at your rating level (and even quite a bit higher), but it can be good practice ig.
back when I was a D class player (back when ratings meant something, and under 1400 meant guppy food), I only started to make improvements in my play when I made a rule for myself: don't exchange pieces unless there's a good reason to. If the other person wants to come looking for exchanges, make him/her do it on terms that are favourable. But don't ever say "points are even, so I may as well trade"
As I have progressed (not a lot, but a little), my sense of what is to be gained or lost from a trade (or from any material sacrifice) has gotten a little more nuanced, a little more subtle. But my basic aversion to exchanging is the same. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the policy of avoiding exchanges and concomitant with that, of maintaining central tension in the openings and middlegame has won games for me. I will post one, when I figure out how to.
One thing that goes with this is a high tolerance for uncertainty. Do I exchange? Do I allow my opponent to exchange? What if I advance the pawn or move the piece, change the position and thus remove the tension? What if my opponent advances the pawn or removes the tension? You have to be willing to live with not being fully in control of the situation for sometimes several moves at a stretch. This is to a certain extent distasteful for everyone. Learn to live with it and you will benefit greatly.
As I have progressed (not a lot, but a little), my sense of what is to be gained or lost from a trade (or from any material sacrifice) has gotten a little more nuanced, a little more subtle. But my basic aversion to exchanging is the same. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the policy of avoiding exchanges and concomitant with that, of maintaining central tension in the openings and middlegame has won games for me. I will post one, when I figure out how to.
One thing that goes with this is a high tolerance for uncertainty. Do I exchange? Do I allow my opponent to exchange? What if I advance the pawn or move the piece, change the position and thus remove the tension? What if my opponent advances the pawn or removes the tension? You have to be willing to live with not being fully in control of the situation for sometimes several moves at a stretch. This is to a certain extent distasteful for everyone. Learn to live with it and you will benefit greatly.
I think it was a john batholomew video i saw years ago where his opponent offered two rooks for john's queen, and john gladly took it.
but, it's harder to coordinate 2 rooks against a queen, so, potentially you'd be better off not trading a queen for 2 rooks, but, you only live once, so, take the challenge I reckon. Don't be surprised if you lose a rook to a pin, skewer or fork, though.
most of the time I hate studying so I don't, but, if I have an opportunity to learn or practice something while playing, I'll take it.
but, it's harder to coordinate 2 rooks against a queen, so, potentially you'd be better off not trading a queen for 2 rooks, but, you only live once, so, take the challenge I reckon. Don't be surprised if you lose a rook to a pin, skewer or fork, though.
most of the time I hate studying so I don't, but, if I have an opportunity to learn or practice something while playing, I'll take it.
In 1966 Fischer successfully tempted Portisch into giving up his queen for two rooks in a position which turned out much better for the queen:
lichess.org/editor/rn2r1k1/p1pq2pp/bp2p3/5p2/2PPQ3/B1PB4/P4PPP/R3K2R_w_KQhq_-_0_1?color=white
Portisch played 14.Qxa8? Nc6 15.Qxe8+ and Fischer soon showed that this was a bad mistake.
Full game here:
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044015
lichess.org/editor/rn2r1k1/p1pq2pp/bp2p3/5p2/2PPQ3/B1PB4/P4PPP/R3K2R_w_KQhq_-_0_1?color=white
Portisch played 14.Qxa8? Nc6 15.Qxe8+ and Fischer soon showed that this was a bad mistake.
Full game here:
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044015
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.