|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Long ago in a galaxy far far away, just in case you haven't seen episode III (Star Wars) go take a look if you like this story line you will probably love this episode.
I just thought I would ramble on about anything and everything about chess ideas, thoughts and or notions. I was just moving through some of the chess forums I visit and noticed the normal questions about what are the value of pieces and the typical answers you see to these types of questions and it reminded me of an article I wrote a few years back. I don't remember the article word for word but it goes something like this; I believe setting a value to pieces help beginners under stand the value of trading (exchanging) is very helpful and beneficial however, in my opinion the pieces have no real value.
Pieces have their own unique way (properties) that allow them to move around the board (squares) but no real value, the only value they have, comes from the square that the piece is placed on at any given time.
I support this idea based on the following information, if we review any game were a player sacrifices a queen / rook or any piece to bring the game to an end or a least obtain a large advantage we have to explain why this happens.
Some call it genius, some call it intuition and some call it luck. So how do we explain that the player with the most material (most points numerical) loses this game?
The answer is clear, the pieces really don't have a value and the squares gave the remaining pieces enough value to allow them to win the game or obtain a large advantage.
Some will look at this and say this is garbage, some will agree, others don't really care. In either case I invite you to prove my information is not accurate and post your own thoughts or ideas on this subject.
|
|
|
It sounds like metaphysics to me, the "no real value" argument, but if you want to enter a war against me with 100.000 soldiers on foot and riffles, while I come with 1.000 war tanks, it's OK by me.
You might have a spy who could sabotage and/or kill my leaders and generals but the chances would be minimal (remember Hitler), which I could call a piece placed in a "real value" square, but the chance of you losing is big.
Play a game against someone your strength, in a normally developed routine, exchange your rooks for bishops or knights, and try to win the game.
The pieces have "different values" because some can access more, or influence a larger number of squares, including "real value squares".
I could post another thread but since you talked about it, let's open another theological question: I don't believe in "Sacrifices". There are not Sacrifices, only Combinations! 
Sacrifice is just a feeling of surprise, or scare, simply because someone didn't see the Combination coming! Is that simple. 
|
|
|
|
|
