Chess piece relative value

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

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 are used as a heuristic that helps 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', where 100 centipawns = 1 pawn, which allows strategic features of the position, worth less than a single pawn, to be evaluated without requiring fractions.

Standard valuations

The following is the most common assignment of point values (Capablanca & de Firmian 2006:24-25), (Soltis 2004:6), (Silman 1998:340), (Polgar & Truong 2005:11).

Pieces	Symbol	Value
pawn		1
knight		3
bishop		3
rook		5
queen		9

The value of the king is undefined as it cannot be captured, let alone traded, during the course of the game. Some early computer chess programs gave the king an arbitrary large value (such as 200 points or 1,000,000,000 points) to indicate that the inevitable loss of the king due to checkmate trumps all other considerations (Levy & Newborn 1991:45). In the endgame, when there is little danger of checkmate, the fighting value of the king is about four points (Lasker 1934:73). 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. For instance, 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).

Alternate valuations

Although the 1/3/3/5/9 system of point totals is generally accepted, many other systems of valuing pieces have been presented. They have mostly been received poorly, although the point system itself falls under similar criticism, as all systems are very rigid and generally fail to take positional factors into account.

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, but that difference was acknowledged to not be real (Mayer 1997:5).

Alternate systems, with pawn = 1

					Source	Date	Comment
3.1	3.3	5	7.9	2.2	Sarratt?	1813	(rounded) pawns vary from 0.7 to 1.3[1]
3.05	3.5	5.48	9.94		Philidor	1817	also given by Staunton in 1847[2]
3.5	3.5	5.7	10.3		Bilguer	1843	(rounded)[3]
3	3	5	9-10	4	Lasker	1934	[4] (Lasker 1934:73)
3½	3½	5½	10		Euwe	1944	(Euwe & Kramer 1944:11)
3½	3½	5	8½	4	Lasker	1947	(rounded) Kingside rooks and bishops are valued more, queenside ones less[5]
3	3+	5	9		Horowitz	1951	The bishop is "3 plus small fraction" (Horowitz 1951:11)
3½	3½+	5	10		Evans	1958	Bishop is 3¾ if in the bishop pair[6] (Evans 1958:77,80)
3	3¼	5	9		Fischer	1972	(Fischer, Mosenfelder & Margulies 1972:14)
3¼	3¼	5	9¾		Kaufman	1999	Add ½ point for the bishop pair[7] (Kaufman 1999)
3.2	3.33	5.1	8.8		Berliner	1999	plus adjustments for openness of position, rank & file (Berliner 1999:14-18)
3½	3½	5	9½				early Soviet chess program (Soltis 2004:6)
3	3	4½	9				another popular system (Soltis 2004:6)
2.4	4	6.4	10.4	3	Yevgeny Gik		based on average mobility; Soltis (2004:10-12) pointed out problems with this type of analysis

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 10 percent or more than that of a bad bishop (Berliner 1999:14-18).

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 was 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 1999:18-20).

Changing valuations in the endgame

The relative value of pieces changes as a game progresses to the endgame. The relative value of pawns and rooks may increase, and the value of bishops may increase also, though usually to a lesser extent. 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

• In the middlegame they are equal
• 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

• 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
• 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 2005:402-3).

• 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 changes 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 1999:16-20).

C.J.S. Purdy gave minor pieces a value of 3½ points in the opening and middlegame but 3 points in the endgame (Purdy 2003:146, 151).

Shortcomings of the system

Silman, diagram 308

White should not exchange a bishop and knight for a rook and pawn with 1. Nxf7?

There are shortcomings of the 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 1998:340-42).

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

Three minor pieces are better than a queen

This situation in this position is not very common, but White has exchanged a queen (nine points) for three minor pieces and a pawn (ten 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 1998:340-41).

Two minor pieces plus two pawns are almost always as good as a queen. Two rooks are better than a queen and pawn (Berliner 1999:13-14).

See also

• The exchange (chess) discusses the difference between a rook and a minor piece
• Computer chess
• Claude Elwood Shannon
• Evaluation function
• Chess endgame has material which justifies the common valuation system

Notes

References

• Alburt, Lev; Nikolai (2005), Just the Facts!: Winning Endgame Knowledge in One Volume (second ed.), Chess Information and Research Center (distributed by W. W. Norton), ISBN 1-889323-15-2 
• Berliner, Hans (1999), The System: A World Champion's Approach to Chess, Gambit Publications, ISBN 1-901983-10-2 
• Burgess, Graham (2000), The Mammoth Book of Chess (2nd ed.), Carroll & Graf, ISBN 978-0-7867-0725-6 
• Capablanca, Jose; de Firmian, Nick (2006), Chess Fundamentals (Completely Revised and Updated for the 21st century), Random House, ISBN 0-8129-3681-7 
• Euwe, Max; Kramer, Hans (1944), The Middlegame, vol. 1, Hays (1994 ed.), ISBN 978-1880673959 (1994 ed.) 
• Evans, Larry (1958), New Ideas in Chess, Pitman (1984 Dover edition), ISBN 0-486-28305-4 
• Fine, Reuben; Benko, Pal (2003), Basic Chess Endings (1941), McKay, ISBN 0-8129-3493-8 
• Fischer, Bobby; Mosenfelder, Donn; Margulies, Stuart (1972), Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-26315-3 
• Horowitz, I. A. (1951), How to Win in the Chess Openings, Cornerstone Library 
• Kaufman, Larry (March 1999), "The Evaluation of Material Imbalances", Chess Life, http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm, retrieved 2006-06-21 
• Lasker, Emanuel (1934), Lasker's Chess Primer, Billings (1988 reprint), ISBN 0-7134-6241-8 
• Lasker, Emanuel (1947), Lasker's Manual of Chess, Dover Publications (1960 reprint), ISBN 0-486-20640-8 
• Levy, David; Newborn, Monty (1991), How Computers Play Chess, Computer Science Press, ISBN 0-7167-8121-2 
• Mayer, Steve (1997), Bishop versus Knight: The Verdict, Batsford, ISBN 1-879479-73-7 
• Polgar, Susan; Truong, Paul (2005), A World Champion's Guide to Chess, Random House, ISBN 978-0-8129-3653-7 
• Purdy, C.J.S. (2003), C.J.S. Purdy on the Endgame, Thinker's Press, ISBN 978-1-888710-01-8 
• Seirawan, Yasser (2003), Winning Chess Endings, Everyman Chess, ISBN 1-85744-348-9 
• Silman, Jeremy (1998), The Complete Book of Chess Strategy:Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z, Siles Press, ISBN 978-1-890085-01-8 
• Soltis, Andy (2004), Rethinking the Chess Pieces, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-8904-9 
• Staunton, Howard (1847), The Chess-Player's Handbook, Henry G. Bohn 
• Staunton, Howard (1870), The Blue Book of Chess Teaching the Rudiments of the Game, and Giving an Analysis of All the Recognized Openings, Porter & Coates, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16377 
• Ward, Chris (1996), Endgame Play, Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-7920-5 
• Watson, John (2006), Mastering the Chess Openings, vol 1, Gambit, ISBN 978-1-904600-60-2 

External links

• Relative Value of Chess Pieces
• Relative Value of Pieces and Principles of Play from The Modern Chess Instructor by Wilhelm Steinitz
• About the Values of Chess Pieces by Ralph Betza, 1996.
• Larry Kaufman article
• some historical evaluations