Talk:Chess piece relative value

message: I've removed the assertion that these piece values were first introduced to help in computer chess; it isn't true. Many books from before the computer era include similar points systems; one example, if I recall correctly, is Howard Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook (1847).
--Camembert
I did some research, and I believe that the standard values were first formulated by the Modenese School in the 18th century (although some parts were already discussed by Pietro Carrera in 1617). I added this information with reference to their books. 
(Sersunzo (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that is good material.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Can we cite a writer who advocates these half-pawn deductions for doubled, isolated and backward pawns? They seem very simplistic (the degree of difficulty doubled pawns, for example, present is very much dependent on the position; in some cases they may actually constitute an advantage), and I know many chess players would disagree with them, or at least say that you can't generalise about such things, but if we can at least quote somebody reputable saying these are sensible deductions, then lets do so. --Camembert
: The idea of giving weak pawn structures negative scores is expressed here, and here, both advocate a similar approach (although one assigns pawns a value of 100, and deducts 50 for doubled pawns).  After reading a little more now, there are many interesting other things such as +.1 of a pawn's worth for each possible move on the board, penalties for the king being in an unsafe position, or bonuses for a knight's proximity to the center.  Maybe that kinda stuff doesn't belong in this article though, I'm not sure.   —siroχo
::I see now that you're dealing mainly with computer chess. I was coming at it from the point of view of a human player, for whom such definite values are of limited practical use, of course. I'll try to tweak the article to reflect that. I wonder if it's a subject better suited to the computer chess article, however (there's already a little there in the "Leaf evaluation" section). --Camembert
:::I think substracting the equivalent of half a pawn for doubled or isolated pawns is way too much. Bubba73--Bubba73 01:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably so.  It sounds about right for pawns both doubled and isolated.  Baccyak4H 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'd say that a factor would be whether or not the opponent can block both your doubled pawns with one of his.  That would render them effectively no better than a single pawn. WHPratt (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if you subtract 1/2 point for a pawn being doubled and 1/2 point for a pawn being isolated, then a pair of pawns that are doubled and isolated, they would be worthless.  Shannon used that in his paper, but he was just giving an illustration.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I wasn't clear with what I meant.  I agree that 1/2 pawn penalty is too much for either doubled or isolated pawns (in general).  But I said that it sounds about right if the two pawns were both. That is, the two would be worth 1.5 points (approximately, in general).  In general I do not think they would be worth only 1 point; while their mobility is halved and their ability to protect each other completely gone, they still control the same number of squares and usually count as fully two pawns for purposes of determining whether the opponent has a pawn majority or not.  Baccyak4H 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your 1.5 for a pair of isolated and doubled pawns is probably about right.  I don't remember seeing that anywhere though.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  You probably didn't.  It's just adding my two cents about the half pawn penalties apparently in the two references above; I do not intend to change the article in any way to reflect any of this.  Baccyak4H 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pawn structure values

message: Is there some sort of formula that came up with these numbers for the various pieces? Can we apply it to various fairy pieces? See the discussion on that article's talk page.--Sonjaaa 23:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the values are mainly derrived from experience, of how they compare in actual games.  However, except for the bishop, the values are approximately proportional to their average mobility.  Bishops are an exception, because they are confined to squares of one color.  216.227.38.10 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bishops are not discounted by a full half (because they reach only half the squares).  The fact that they are a long-range piece partially compensates for that.  Also, how they do in actual positions should be taken into effect ("a knight on the rim is pretty grim").  On an empty board, averaged over all of the squares, the bishop has an average mobility of 8.625 squares and the knight has an average mobility of 5.25 squares.  That is a "discount" of 39%.  If you consider maximum mobility, it is 13 versus 8, a very similar 38.5% "discount".  But you're right about actual positions need to be taken into account.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be easily tested how much the color binding depresses the value of the bishop, by measuring the value of 'augmented bishops', which differ from an orthodox bishop only by being allowed a backward step to an empty square, which would bring them to the other square shade. From such tests it turns out that there is hardly any effect on the value of pairs of such pieces, (like 1/6 Pawn per bishop), and that the little value increase there is is almost equal to the effect on similarly augmented knights. (In other words, if one player starts with augmented bishops instead of normal ones, and the otherplayer with augmented knights instead of normal knights, matches will end in scores very close to 50%.) So any discounting of the value comes about entirely through the pair bonus. One could say that without color binding the Bishop would have been worth 3.50, (half the value of the pair), but that a lone Bishop, where the color binding starts manifesting itself, must be discounted by 1/4 Pawn (making it appear as if the Bishop that completed the pair was worth 3.75). That amounts to a discount of only 7%, very much less than the 39% needed to equalize bishop and knight starting from an 'ideal value' based on the average mobility.H.G.Muller (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Attempts to calculate piece values ab initio, in proportion to some square-averaged mobility usually fail badly, because they (1) do not take into account that in practical play you would avoid to put the piece on squares with poor mobility, (2) moves have synergy, so that value increases faster than linear, making a queen worth more than rook plus a bishop, and (3) there are som overall properties depending on the entire combination of moves, (speed, color binding, mating potential) which would discriminate between pieces of equal mobility. I have empirically measured (i.e. by playing games) the value of many different fairy pieces, and for fully symmetrical short-range leapers with N moves the formula 1.1*(30 + 5/8*N)*N seems a reasonably good approximation for their value in centi-Pawns. (Unless the piece is somehow 'sick', e.g. by having only forward moves, or having a severe form of higher-order color binding.) Furthermore, forward moves seem to contribute twice as much to value as backward or sideway moves, and captures seem to contribute twice as much as non-captures. Sliders are more difficult to fathom. A major effect here seems to be that moves to orthogonally adjacent squares are worth an extra bonus on top of the value of the moves itself. This contributes to the unexpectedly large value of the Archbishop (BN), and to the value difference of Rook and Bishop (which is sizable even on a cylinder board, where they have practically equal average mobility).H.G.Muller (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  calculating values for fairy pieces? 

message: I removed the following (much of which I wrote or revised):
In some computer chess programs, the king is assigned an artificial value such as 200 points – an arbitrary value higher than the sum of all other pieces plus positional factors.  This ensures that the computer will value checkmate over all exchanges or sacrifices.  See the discussion about Shannon's chess program at Claude Elwood Shannon for a more complete description.
In evaluating a position, computer programs will typically make further adjustments to this score according to various positional factors. For example, 1/3 of a point may be subtracted for doubled pawns, isolated pawns and backward pawns, fractions of points may be added for possession of open files, and so on. For most humans, such positional evaluation is done without reference to a numerical score. 
because it is about positional factors and evaluation functions in chess programs, and not directly about the topic of the article.  This is basically covered in computer chess, Claude Elwood Shannon, and evaluation function.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: I have removed the following:
::In 1999, chess programmer Ed Trice derived equations to compute values for chess piece on boards of any size for his innovative game known as Gothic Chess. The forumlae apply equally well for standard chess, and are an extension of the work of Henry Taylor from 1876. Trice's paper was published by the International Computer Games Association Journal in 2004. See 80-Square Chess, for more information.
Because, well, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and because such discussion belongs on the page for Capablanca chess or Gothic chess because it is only of interest for people interested in Chess variants. Just to clarify 15:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add that paragraph, and I don't object to it being removed.  However, it does state that it applies to standard chess, and that is the only tie-in to this article.  However, it doesn't state any results for standard chess.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More removed material 

message: I restored the material from grandmasters Lev Alburt and Nikolay Krogius again.  It is cited in their book, which is referenced.  It is not my opinion, it is their opinion.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But just because it's their opinion, should it be placed on the article? Is their opinion really that notable, especially when it flies in the face of everything else? I think if we include it, let's just put their values in the same section as everybody else's self-made values. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The others are static evaluations.  The material from Alburt and Krogius is specifically about how the valuations change in the endgame.  What do you think about either "Changing valuations in the endgame" below "alternate valuations" or making it a subset of the latter? Bubba73 (talk), 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A subset might work nicely. Good thinking. I've done it... how do you like it? I think we can work the Evans and Fischer stuff into the main area, as well, but another task for another day. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That looks OK to me.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still okay, after what I just did? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  I think that the article needed the reorganization you did to it.  Good job, improving the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  material from Alburt and Krogius 

message: I expanded Staunton's valuation of the pieces a bit from a Project Gutenberg text.  Unfortunately I might not have it quite right—the Gutenberg text is a 1930 reprint of an 1870 original with additional material from unnamed "Modern Authorities".  I think it unlikely that the piece values material from pages 30–31 of that text were altered from Staunton's work, but I can't be sure. Quale 00:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staunton 

message: There are citation requests for the value of the bishop given by Fischer and the values given by the USCF.  I don't know of any source for the USCF statement - it may be bogus.  Does anyone know where that came from?  I've read the Fischer value of the bishop, but I don't remember where.  It might be in 60 Memorable Games or something.  Does anyone know?   Bubba73 (talk), 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "values used by the USCF" paragraph was added by an anon user on Sept 30, 2007.  I could find no reference for this and I think that a request for a citation was never answered.  In addition, this is the only chess edit by this IP user.  I propose that it be deleted, unless someone can find a reference.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeking sources 

message: Well, since it has been unsourced for over two months, I deleted it (see aboove):
The values used by the United States Chess Federation are: 
* pawn = 1
* knight = 3.25
* bishop = 3.3
* rook = 5
* queen = 9 Bubba73 (talk), 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I never found anything on the USCF website saying that.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: USCF values

message: I think I understand what the text that was added and removed today means.  In the early program, they put a value of 200 points on the king and then did not have to program in the rules about moving into check and checkmate.  Since 200 points is higher than the sum of all other material, this would be an easy way to have the program avoid checkmate at all costs (and also avoid moving into check).  However, by the requirement to move (not exactly what zugzwang means, this method will not work correctly for stalemate positions - the program would avoid getting itself stalemated.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, that is not really a correct use of "zugzwqng" - I think the editor really means the requirement to move.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you re: zugzwang.  My use of "I also don't see" was meant to indicate agreement, but I didn't word it well.  As far as I understand it, requirement to move isn't really addressed in computer chess at all.  It comes up in the well known horizon effect, and quiescence searches and threat something or other extensions are used to mitigate the problem. Quale (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as the horizon effect doesn't come into play, giving the king a high value and allowing it to be captured and moved like a regular piece is a quick and dirty way to have it avoid checkmate at all costs, and it also means that you don't have to program in checkmate and not moving into check directly - with the provisio that it loses if it move into check. But it also avoids stalemate.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I might understand what you and the original editor were getting at.  Because a stalemate looks very bad to the computer (at least −200 points instead of the correct evaluation of +0), it will do really dumb things including sacrificing the queen and all other pieces to avoid it. In other words, the computer would lose in order to avoid a draw (since it doesn't recognize stalemate as a draw).  Quale (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if you are using the simple to program method of loss of the king is more points than all of the other material combined, then stalemate would look like a loss, and that would make it avoid being stalemated, and it would think that if it stalemated the other king it would be a win.  Of course, they probably did that to be expediant.  Also, the value isn't "artibrary" - it has to be higher than the max possible sum other material and positional factors.  Bubba73 (talk), 13:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  added and removed material today 

message: I believe this page should be moved to "chess piece point values" since it is about systems of values, not about the values individually (which would be nonsensical). 91.107.140.122 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe.  It is about the relative value of each piece.  Several systems are discussed.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "chess piece relative values".  Bubba73 (talk), 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We almost invariably use single nouns instead of plural for Wikipedia article names, for instance Cat instead of Cats even though we talk about "cats" not "cat" both inside and outside of that article. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  What do you think about "chess piece relative value"? Or "chess piece value"?  I am in favor of changing or removing "point". Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value or values? 

message: Clarification needed: 
1st and 2nd tables: What thinks/says Berliner about rank 7?
3rd table "advanced pawns": There is no advanced pawns with rank 4... Value "x"? Rank 7?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.99.238 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth rank is not considered "advanced".  The tables are as in his book, he gives no value for the cases with the "x".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Bubba73. What is then the meaning of the 4. rank in the last table "advanced pawns?" I think, I should find the book...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.99.238 (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch.  The table is actually for "pawn advances", i.e. he must mean a pawn advance from that rank.  He says "A pawn's value doesn't increase much until it reaches the fifth rank, and then it increases its base value according to the table below which shows the gains... These multipliers are to be applied to the base value of the pawn" (which differs according to the rank).  Of course, you might use this sort of valuation in a computer program, but people don't think in terms of "I'll advance that pawn and increase its value by 10%".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hans Berliner's tables 

message: What the hell are wrong with the citations on this page?  Someone should look into this, they're all f**ked up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.236.175.178 (talk • contribs) 
: They work for me - click on them and they take you to the reference data.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: We recently had a tournament at the high school I attend. The time limit was one hour for the game, but that was based in real time. We didn't use the game clock.
At the end of the hour, and only in draws under that rule, we used the standard scoring system to break ties. Whoever had more points on the board moved on. If there was a tie, it was treated like any other draw and they replayed the match.
The tournament never reached a point where the rule was enforced, and I don't expect it to catch on, but hey, the system found a way into a rule book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.177.20 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What rulebook has that "rule"?  There is no such rule.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some competitions incorporate a rule that long-running games can be resolved by adjudication, wherein some agreed-upon expert can decide who's winning, if either player, and thus award the points. However, these judges take the entire position and dynamics into account, not just the value of the remaining pieces. The procedure described above would be an extremely low-level application of this idea.WHPratt (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, just grab a pawn and hold on.  Don't move until the time runs out! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3. any, then Black just sits there until the time is up and wins the game.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that this system will end up somewhat altering the gameplay strategies: it doesn't let you sacrifice to create stalemates when swindling opportunities arise, because your opponent will end up having more "points" on the board. Double sharp (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the guy that posted that to begin with, and you can check the IP address for verification. It's important to note that this was an intramural high school tournament with no official standing in the eyes of any governing body. Therefore, we could pretty much do whatever we wanted to. Where I went, most of the students (myself included) have some sort of mental "disability" and really didn't have the patience to just sit there for an hour. In the final (I was a spectator and, at times, substitute official), I had to tell the guy playing black to stop bouncing. A redemption bracket match featured 7 replays just because one guy kept forgetting that checkmate requires your opponent to be in check. I think I would have been the only one there who would think to use that to my advantage, and I decided not to sign up. If it was a tournament among students on the autism spectrum, it might work again. But if Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand played for the world championship under these rules, expect a return of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.67.142.163.20 (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in the rules 

message: The article claims that some computer programs value the king at 1,000,000,000 points. Says who?  Since programs usually use centipawns, that's 100 billion centipawns, a value that won't fit in a 32-bit unsigned integer.  I think this claim is an exaggeration, which is to say false.  One million would be plausible, since there's absolutely no point in using a billion here.  No possible material advantage combined with any conceivable position evaluation advantage could come within six orders of magnitude of a billion.  Quale (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am rather sceptical that they actually use a positive integer value for the king. By that logic, wouldn't it seem perfectly fine to a computer to answer check with check, or to exchange kings? Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is probably built into the rules that the kings can't get close enough to exchange.  Putting a high value on the capture of the king is an easy way for it to have the goal of checkmate, as if it were capturing the king.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it would not prevent them from answering mate with a mate, right? (As if Black could play ...Qe1# after Kramnik's famous mate-in-one blunder, even after the White Qh7#). So all the rules about check and mate need to be programmed in. (Otherwise most stalemates become wins since the stalemated player would have to commit suicide.) This kind of defeats the purpose of trying to simplify things by giving the king a large numerical point value. Now, I could believe that a forced mating sequence counts for large numerical points (so that sacrifices are OK), but not the king itself. Double sharp (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are probably right about that.  It would see that if it can checkmate on the next move, it would "even out".  Simple (and early) programs probably don't take that into account. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the Black player of this game had the same misunderstanding, or I cannot find an explanation for his blindness. ^_^ (Surely this is the best of the ultimate blunders!) Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  King value of 1,000,000,000 points 

message: Given that the princess (B+N) and empress (R+N) are the two fairy pieces everyone invents and puts in their chess variants (including Capablanca), I wonder if there have yet been enough variants made that people have said anything about their values in reliable sources. It seems more likely than for any other fairy pieces (although if we're talking about historical variants too, there most certainly are historical values for shatranj). I would personally put the princess at 8 pawns and the empress at 9 pawns, assuming both are living on an 8×8 board, but that is only my OR. Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the list there also includes one with an amazon (Q+N): I would personally rate that as 12. Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On fairy pieces 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chess piece relative value. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629013845/http://mywebpages.comcast.net:80/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm to http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040802224948/http://chess.about.com:80/library/ble23pvl.htm to http://chess.about.com/library/ble23pvl.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803054716/http://chess.about.com:80/library/ble23zws.htm to http://chess.about.com/library/ble23zws.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314214435/http://www.danheisman.com/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm to http://www.danheisman.com/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am the author of "True Chess: The American Revolution" and I was looking to making what I call "The Formula" known to all who would search wikipedia for answers concerning chess piece values. In my book I reveal "The Formula" and I show how it all makes sense. I demonstrate how the value of the squares and the value of the pieces come together. I demonstrate in irrefutable fashion how chess is an expression of Pi. All who are interested in knowing the value of the pieces should have access to this information. I am new to editing and I don't look forward to making another attempt at it. The potential value of the pieces are pawns = .942  knights = 2.512  bishops = 4.082  rooks = 4.396  queens = 8.478  kings have a fighting strength value of 2.512. The squares = .314 each times 64 = 20.096  One queen, one rook, one bishop, one knight, and one pawn = 20.410.
The difference between 20.410 and 20.096 is .314   Please contact me and help me add this information to the Chess piece relative value page or help me create the Chess piece potential value page. Don't do it for me do it for the people who are seeking information.MyDiametrical (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess piece potential value. 

message: Could it be possible to transfer this analogy to other games, such as Battleships ?
80.43.1.195 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transferred use 

message: We need a reference for the Stockfish valuations.  I couldn't find it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stockfish valuations have been explained in a footnote, but we still need a reference for them.  Also, they are dubious.  For the endgame a pawn is 213 and a knight is 865, i.e. a knight is 4.06 pawns.  But two pawns usually win against a knight.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the number of pawns on the board is not considered is to me already a major red flag. A late endgame situation with no other material on each side will depress the value of a minor piece, especially as it is a knight, because it can at most hope to draw (except for the odd case of Stamma's mate in N vs P). K+8P vs K+N+6P should give the knight's side a strong advantage, as the defending king is just going to be too slow to deal with all the forking threats. A value of 4 pawns for the knight seems only reasonable in the very early opening or perhaps in a closed position with all the pawns on the board; in the very late endgame it should be around 2 at most when almost all the pawns disappear. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

text:  Well the valuations are referenced because the footnote links to the code.  But it also gives a rook as 6.47 pawns in the endgame.  Three pawns often win against a rook, depending on how far advanced they are. (I had one of those and won with the pawns.)  And four pawns generally beat a rook.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do, but piece values are usually intended to be valid for average situations without significant positional advantages affecting one or the other type of piece and a material balance of rook versus enough pawns with no other material is never going to occur in such an average situation – especially since the value of the pawn is affected more significantly by positional concerns than that of any other piece. Piece values are influenced by what else is on the board and the values of large swarms of identical pieces are not always predictable by multiplying the value of one of that piece type by how many of them you have. To take an extreme example, 3Q+8P is slaughtered by 7N+8P because the queens have no room to avoid being harrassed by all the knights, but we cannot conclude from this that Q is closer to being worth 2 minors rather than 3 on average. When we say "rook = 5 points", it doesn't mean that an average position with the material imbalance of R vs 5P will give equal chances for both sides. An army with all its pawns deleted will slaughter one with only its queen deleted from the initial position, not just mildly outclass it as one would expect from comparing a queen to eight pawns. No, we can only compare against sets of pawns for minor pieces (e.g. piece vs 3 pawns); when we say that rook = 5 and queen = 9, we are actually thinking of comparisons like R vs minor (the exchange), 2 minors vs R, R + minor vs Q, 2R vs Q, 3 minors vs Q, and how many pawns it takes to balance them; and not comparing them against swarms of pawns, whose total values will not equal 5 or 9 times that of the average pawn, but will be very dependent on the exact shape of the swarm and how well-placed the enemy pieces are at dealing with them. Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

text: P.S. I wrote the above half-remembering that I'd seen similar statements and examples, and indeed, now that I've looked it up, I see my memory is heavily indebted to this comment on piece values by H.G.Muller on The Chess Variant Pages. Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the valuations are a lot more useful in comparing differences in N/B/R/Q in typical positions rather than those unusual situations, or a piece versus a number of pawns (although I've had some of those).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed; OTOH, I really don't see how the Stockfish valuations as quoted could possibly be relevant for anything other than unusual situations... Double sharp (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stockfish valuations 

message: I have added a citation needed flag to the sentence describing Betza's 'leveling effect'. So far as I know he uses the term only to mean that a defended lower value piece is not generally worried by an attack by a higher valued piece, but usually a defended higher value piece if attacked by a lower valued piece must move (and similar considerations). This is not the meaning ascribed.
I've also removed the comment about three queens losing badly to seven knights because firstly there was no citation and I don't see it in Betza's page and secondly it's false; the queens win 90% of the time usually very quickly.   
--Martin Rattigan (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 3Q lose badly to 7N when both start behind a closed wall of pawns. Double sharp (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in standard valuations section 

message: The alternative valuations table says "Lasker adjusts some of these depending on the starting positions".  However, it's not clear which Lasker, Emanuel or Edward, is being referred to.  Both Laskers are mentioned in the article.  On the one hand, since the previous reference to Lasker (and the only other one in that table) refers to Emanuel, one would suspect that the "Lasker adjusts" statement refers to Emanuel.  On the other hand, the date for this valuation is given as 1947, at which time Emanuel was dead but Edward was still alive.  This would tend to point to Edward for this valuation.  
Which is it? Riordanmr (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be Emanuel since he is the one in the reference.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you are right that it's Emanuel.  Digging deeper, I see that a reference in that section mentions (Emanuel) Lasker's Manual of Chess, and gives it a publication date of 1947.  There are quite a few dates of publication floating around for this book.  I believe that the facts of the matter are that German edition was published in 1925 and the English in 1932.  However, I will do some more research before making any fixes to the article.  Riordanmr (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lasker's" Alternative valuations 

message: This edit created decimals, with the edit summary: "Merged fractions into a unitary decimal system...}
This edit reverted to fractions, with this edit summary: "Not an improvement"
I reverted the last one, but I'd like to see what others think.
What do we really want? I don't know if there is any standard way, and I've seen both used. The UCSF shows a decimal system. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractions vs Decimals? 

message: The endgame value of a pawn  maybe different than one because of possible  promotion to other pieces. 194.153.110.5 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the particular pawn. The values are intended as averages, not for cases like draws in KQ vs KP. Double sharp (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Pawns do increase in value in the endgame.  A few methods take that into account. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: His channel isn't even primarily focused on chess. This is essentially the same naive mobility-based analysis as that by Gik, with all the same caveats as pointed out by Soltis. Youtube is not a credible source for anything, it's a self-publishing site where anyone can say anything they want. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-credible youtube user