Chess piece relative value

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In chess, the chess piece relative value system

conventionally assigns a point value to each piece when
assessing its relative strength in potential exchanges.
These values help determine how valuable a piece is strategically. They play no formal role in
the game but are useful to players and are also used in computer chess to help the computer
evaluate positions.

Calculations of the value of pieces provide only a rough idea of the state of play. The exact piece
values will depend on the game situation, and can differ considerably from those given here. In
some positions, a well-placed piece might be much more valuable than indicated by heuristics,
while a badly placed piece may be completely trapped and, thus, almost worthless.

Valuations almost always assign the value 1 point to pawns (typically as the average value of a
pawn in the starting position). Computer programs often represent the values of pieces and
positions in terms of 'centipawns' (cp), where 100 cp = 1 pawn, which allows strategic features of
the position, worth less than a single pawn, to be evaluated without requiring fractions.

Edward Lasker said "It is difficult to compare the relative value of different pieces, as so much
depends on the peculiarities of the position...". Nevertheless, he said that bishops and knights
(minor pieces) were equal, rooks are worth a minor piece plus one or two pawns, and a queen is
worth three minor pieces or two rooks (Lasker 1915:11).

Contents
1 Standard valuations
2 Alternative valuations
o 2.1 Hans Berliner's system

3 Changing valuations in the endgame

4 Shortcomings of piece valuation systems
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References
8 External links
This article uses algebraic
notation to describe chess
moves.

Standard valuations
The following table is the most common assignment of point values (Capablanca & de Firmian
2006:2425), (Seirawan & Silman 1990:40), (Soltis 2004:6), (Silman 1998:340), (Polgar &
Truong 2005:11).

Symbol

Piece pawn knight bishop rook queen

Value 1 3 3 5 9

These values are very reliable in endgames with a limited number of pieces. The oldest
derivation of the standard values is due to the Modenese School (Ercole del Rio, Giambattista
Lolli, and Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani) in the 18th century (Lolli 1763:255) and is partially
based on the earlier work of Pietro Carrera (Carrera 1617:11521). The value of the king is
undefined as it cannot be captured, let alone traded, during the course of the game. Some
computer chess programs give the king an arbitrary large value (such as 200 points or
1,000,000,000 points, for example Zillions of Games gives 106332 points for king vs. 14332
points for queen in center)[citation needed] to indicate that the inevitable loss of the king due to
checkmate trumps all other considerations (Levy & Newborn 1991:45), as that is the easiest way
to create a computer chess program due to technology limits. In the endgame, where there is
usually little danger of checkmate, the fighting value of the king is about four points (Lasker
1934:73). In the endgame, a king is more powerful than a minor piece but less powerful than a
rook. Julian Hodgson also puts its value at four points (Aagaard 2004:12). The king is good at
attacking and defending nearby pieces and pawns. It is better at defending such pieces than the
knight is, and it is better at attacking them than the bishop is (Ward 1996:13).

This system has some shortcomings. Combinations of pieces do not always equal the sum of
their parts; for instance, two bishops are usually worth slightly more than a bishop plus a knight,
and three minor pieces (nine points) are often slightly stronger than two rooks (ten points) or a
queen (nine points) (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24), (Fine & Benko 2003:458, 582). A
bishop pair is worth half a pawn, thus slightly superior to a bishop and knight.[citation needed]

The evaluation of the pieces depends on many parameters. For example, GM Larry Kaufman
suggests the following values in the middlegame:

Symbol

Piece pawn knight bishop rook queen

Value 1 3 3 5 10
The Bishop pair is worth 7. The position of the pieces also makes a significant difference, e.g.
pawns near the edges are worth less than those near the centre, pawns close to promotion are
worth far more, pieces controlling the centre are worth more than average, trapped pieces (such
as bad bishops) are worth less, etc.

Alternative valuations
Although the 1/3/3/5/9 system of point totals is the most commonly given, many other systems
of valuing pieces have been proposed. Several systems give the bishop slightly more value than
the knight. A bishop is usually slightly more powerful than a knight, but not always; it depends
on the position (Evans 1958:77,80) (Mayer 1997:7). A chess-playing program was given the
value of 3 for the knight and 3.4 for the bishop (Mayer 1997:5).

Alternative systems, with pawn = 1

Source Date Comment

(rounded) pawns vary from 0.7

3.1 3.3 5.0 7.9 2.2 Sarratt? 1813
to 1.3[1]
3.05 3.50 5.48 9.94 Philidor 1817 also given by Staunton in 1847[2]
early
3 3 5 10 Peter Pratt 19th (Hooper & Whyld 1992:439)
century
(rounded) (Hooper & Whyld
3.5 3.5 5.7 10.3 Bilguer 1843
1992:439)[3]
[4]
3 3 5 9-10 4 Lasker 1934 (Lasker 1934:73)
3 3 5 10 Euwe 1944 (Euwe & Kramer 1994:11)
(rounded) Kingside rooks and
3 3 5 8 4 Lasker 1947 bishops are valued more,
queenside ones less[5]
The bishop is "3 plus small
fraction" (Horowitz 1951:11),
3 3+ 5 9 Horowitz 1951
(Horowitz & Rothenberg
1963:36)
Bishop is 3 if in the bishop
3 3+ 5 10 4 Evans 1958
pair[6] (Evans 1958:77,80)
Styeklov (early
(Soltis 2004:6) (Levy &
3 3 5 9 Soviet chess 1961
Newborn 1991:45)
program)
(Fischer, Mosenfelder &
3 3 5 9 Fischer 1972
Margulies 1972:14)
European
Committee on
3 3 4 8 1970s (Brace 1977:236)
Computer Chess,
Euwe
3 3 4 9 Garry Kasparov 1986 (Kasparov 1986:9)
A queen equals three minor
Soviet chess
3 3 5 9-10 1990 pieces or two rooks (Hooper &
encyclopedia
Whyld 1992:439)
Add point for the bishop
3 3 5 9 Kaufman 1999
pair[7] (Kaufman 1999)
Add point for the bishop pair.
These are evaluation of the
pieces in Middle games[8]
Kaufman, Larry (2011),
3 3 5 10 Kaufman 2011
The Kaufman Repertoire
for Black & White, New
in Chess, ISBN 978-90-
5691-371-7
plus adjustments for openness of
3.20 3.33 5.10 8.80 Berliner 1999 position, rank & file (Berliner
1999:1418)
3 3 5 9 Kurzdorfer 2003 (Kurzdorfer 2003:94)
another popular
3 3 4 9 (Soltis 2004:6)
system
used by a Two bishops are worth more
4 3 7 13 4
computer (Hooper & Whyld 1992:439)
based on average mobility;
Soltis (2004:1012) pointed out
2.4 4.0 6.4 10.4 3.0 Yevgeny Gik
problems with this type of
analysis
3.075 3.315 5 9.5 4 Median
3.2 3.3 5.2 9.6 3.5 Average

Note: Where a value for the king is given, this is used when considering piece development, its
power in the endgame, etc.

Hans Berliner's system

World Correspondence Chess Champion Hans Berliner gives the following valuations, based on
experience and computer experiments:

pawn = 1
knight = 3.2
bishop = 3.33
rook = 5.1
queen = 8.8
There are adjustments for the rank and file of a pawn and adjustments for the pieces depending
on how open or closed the position is. Bishops, rooks, and queens gain up to 10 percent more
value in open positions and lose up to 20 percent in closed positions. Knights gain up to 50
percent in closed positions and lose up to 30 percent in the corners and edges of the board. The
value of a good bishop may be at least 10 percent higher than that of a bad bishop (Berliner
1999:1418).

a b c d e f g h
8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3
2 2
 1 1

a b c d e f g h
Different types of doubled pawns (from Berliner).

There are different types of doubled pawns; see the diagram. White's doubled pawns on the b-file
are the best situation in the diagram, since advancing the pawns and exchanging can get them un-
doubled and mobile. The doubled b-pawn is worth 0.75 points. If the black pawn on a6 were on
c6, it would not be possible to dissolve the doubled pawn, and it would be worth only 0.5 points.
The doubled pawn on f2 is worth about 0.5 points. The second white pawn on the h-file is worth
only 0.33 points, and additional pawns on the file would be worth only 0.2 points (Berliner
1999:1820).

Value of pawn advances (multiplier of base amount)

Rank Isolated Connected Passed Passed & connected
 4 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.55
5 1.30 1.35 1.55 2.3
6 2.1 x x 3.5
Value of non-passed pawn in the opening Value of non-passed pawn in the endgame
Rank a & h file b & g file c & f file d & e file Rank a & h file b & g file c & f file d & e file
2 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.10 2 1.20 1.05 0.95 0.90
3 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.15 3 1.20 1.05 0.95 0.90
4 0.90 0.95 1.10 1.20 4 1.25 1.10 1.00 0.95
5 0.97 1.03 1.17 1.27 5 1.33 1.17 1.07 1.00
6 1.06 1.12 1.25 1.40 6 1.45 1.29 1.16 1.05

Changing valuations in the endgame

As already noted when the standard values were first formulated (Lolli 1763:255), the relative
strength of the pieces changes as a game progresses to the endgame. The value of pawns, rooks
and, to a lesser extent, bishops may increase. The knight tends to lose some power, and the
strength of the queen may be slightly lessened, as well. Some examples follow.

A queen versus two rooks

o In the middlegame they are equal

o In the endgame, the two rooks are somewhat more powerful. With no other pieces
on the board, two rooks are equal to a queen and a pawn
A rook versus two minor pieces
o In the opening and middlegame, a rook and two pawns are weaker than two
bishops; equal to or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight; and equal to two
knights
o In the endgame, a rook and one pawn are equal to two knights; and equal or
slightly weaker than a bishop and knight. A rook and two pawns are equal to two
bishops (Alburt & Krogius 2005:4023).
Bishops are often more powerful than rooks in the opening. Rooks are usually more
powerful than bishops in the middlegame, and rooks dominate the minor pieces in the
endgame (Seirawan 2003:ix).
As the tables in Berliner's system show, the values of pawns change dramatically in the
endgame. In the opening and middlegame, pawns on the central files are more valuable.
In the late middlegame and endgame the situation reverses, and pawns on the wings
become more valuable due to their likelihood of becoming an outside passed pawn and
threatening to promote. When there is about fourteen points of material on both sides, the
value of pawns on any file is about equal. After that, wing pawns become more valuable
(Berliner 1999:1620).
C.J.S. Purdy gave minor pieces a value of 3 points in the opening and middlegame but 3 points
in the endgame (Purdy 2003:146, 151).

Shortcomings of piece valuation systems

Silman, diagram 308
a b c d e f g h
8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3
2 2
 1 1

a b c d e f g h
White should not exchange a bishop and knight for a rook and pawn with 1. Nxf7?

There are shortcomings of any piece valuation system. For instance, positions in which a bishop
and knight can be exchanged for a rook and pawn are fairly common (see diagram). In this
position, White should not do that, e.g.

1. Nxf7? Rxf7
2. Bxf7+ Kxf7

This seems like an even exchange (six points for six points), but it is not because two minor
pieces are better than a rook and pawn in the middlegame (Silman 1998:34042). Pachman also
notes that two bishops are almost always better than a rook and pawn (Pachman 1971:11).
In most openings, two minor pieces are better than a rook and pawn and are usually at least as
good as a rook and two pawns until the position is greatly simplified (i.e. late middlegame or
endgame). Minor pieces get into play earlier than rooks and they coordinate better, especially
when there are many pieces and pawns on the board. Rooks are usually developed later and are
often blocked by pawns until later in the game (Watson 2006:102).

Silman, diagram 307

a b c d e f g h
8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3
2 2
 1 1

a b c d e f g h
Three minor pieces are better than a queen

This situation in this position is not very common, but White has exchanged a queen and a pawn
(ten points) for three minor pieces (nine points). Three minor pieces are usually better than a
queen because of their greater mobility, and the extra pawn is not important enough to change
the situation (Silman 1998:34041). Three minor pieces are almost as strong as two rooks
(Pachman 1971:11).

Two minor pieces plus two pawns are almost always as good as a queen. Two rooks are better
than a queen and pawn (Berliner 1999:1314).
Many of the systems have a two-point difference between the rook and a minor piece, but most
theorists put that difference at about 1 points, see The exchange (chess)#Value of the exchange.

In open positions, a rook plus a pair of bishops is stronger than two rooks plus a knight (Kaufeld
& Kern 2011:79).