| |
Main
Date: 10 Oct 2005 08:15:58
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
Hi,
If a pawn is worth a point, and a minor piece is worth..5 (o
something), and a point is about 3 tempi...
..what value would you all put on the right to castle? In other words
what would you sacrifice to keep it, or deny your opponent it?
of course, it all depends on circumstances, but in the same theoretica
spirit with which we give points to pawns and pieces, how many point
would you give this one?
my opening bid is: equivalent of 2 pawn
--
tdiedwards
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2005 10:01:44
From: Bateman
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
Ray Gordon Oct 12, 5:05 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
From: "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:05:12 GMT
Local: Wed, Oct 12 2005 5:05 am
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
Reply
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2005 17:43:26
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
> I would guess, objectively, that the right to castle, on average, is
> worth
> about three-quarters of a pawn.>>>
>
> ...and your reasoning..? I think Richerby got it right, it's totally
> dependent on the position.
That can be said of ANYTHING in chess. People asked for my opinion, and I
gave it.
My reasoning is that the right to castle obviously has some value, yet if
someone is up a pawn and the other side doesn't have a clear way of winning
it back, they are probably lost, so I wouldn't value it at more than a pawn.
The typical positional advantage in the opening is worth about a half-pawn,
but this is a little stronger than that, so I settled on three-quarters of a
pawn, or about the same as if someone had castled too early and left their
king vulnerable to attack (which is the same problem in another form).
>Ascribing values to pieces is also
> artificial
Not really, as one presumes positional equality when doing so.
>and I think just something to give novices some idea of
> relative strengths.
It gives GMs the same idea.
>I for one never sat at a board thinking err....nxn,
> e6, fxe bxe6+ # in two.. oh shit, Im three points down!!!
What's your rating?
My peak rating was 2000. I'm probably stronger than that now, as I train my
ass off once again.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2005 04:24:33
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
Ray Gordon Wrote:
> I would guess, objectively, that the right to castle, on average, is-
> worth
> about three-quarters of a pawn.
>
> ...and your reasoning..? I think Richerby got it right, it's totally
> dependent on the position.-
>
> That can be said of ANYTHING in chess. People asked for my opinion
> and I
> gave it.
>
> My reasoning is that the right to castle obviously has some value, ye
> if
> someone is up a pawn and the other side doesn't have a clear way o
> winning
> it back, they are probably lost, so I wouldn't value it at more than
> pawn.
> The typical positional advantage in the opening is worth about
> half-pawn,
> but this is a little stronger than that, so I settled on three-quarter
> of a
> pawn, or about the same as if someone had castled too early and lef
> their
> king vulnerable to attack (which is the same problem in another form).
> -
> Ascribing values to pieces is also
> artificial-
>
> Not really, as one presumes positional equality when doing so.
> -
> and I think just something to give novices some idea of
> relative strengths.-
>
> It gives GMs the same idea.
> -
> I for one never sat at a board thinking err....nxn,
> e6, fxe bxe6+ # in two.. oh ****, Im three points down!!!-
>
> What's your rating?
>
> My peak rating was 2000. I'm probably stronger than that now, as
> train my
> ass off once again.
I agree with Ray's comments above. In the abstract pieces can b
ascribed values because we assume equality. You have to make simila
judgments when you reach your calculation horizon. If you figure out
combination which takes you up to the point where your head wil
explode and at the end of the combination you see your bishop get
swapped for a queen, you would go into the combination. You aren't abl
to see any more deeply into the sequence (because your head woul
explode if you tried) so you have to assume equality and take th
chance (and the queen).
Without the fog of chess any judgment of pieces without regardin
position is obviously misguided (unless it's a theoretical discussio
like this one), as material and position both depend on each other t
have any meaning. There's no such thing as just "a knight", fo
example. A knight would have to be somewhere within the context of
game.
Material takes meaning from position just as positions, clearly, don;
mean anything without material. They are inseperable. But...we ARE abl
to give theoretical values to pieces. I was interested to see if ches
enthusiasts could give theoretical value, in the same way, t
non-material concepts.
To look at this "castling value" idea a little more pragmaticall
someone in another forum suggested that the loss of castle rights migh
be seen basically as a loss of tempi. 2 or 3 tempi (depending on wher
the sacrifice took place) will be needed to achieve what castling woul
have acheived in one. So, if you assume you're gaining 2 tempi on you
opponent, 2 thirds of a pawn seems right.
Thanks for all your input on this
--
tdiedwards
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2005 04:05:12
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
I would guess, objectively, that the right to castle, on average, is worth
about three-quarters of a pawn.
"tdiedwards" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hi,
>
> If a pawn is worth a point, and a minor piece is worth..5 (or
> something), and a point is about 3 tempi...
>
> ..what value would you all put on the right to castle? In other words,
> what would you sacrifice to keep it, or deny your opponent it?
>
> of course, it all depends on circumstances, but in the same theoretical
> spirit with which we give points to pawns and pieces, how many points
> would you give this one?
>
> my opening bid is: equivalent of 2 pawns
>
>
> --
> tdiedwards
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 08:41:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
tdiedwards <[email protected] > wrote:
> If a pawn is worth a point, and a minor piece is worth..5 (or
> something), and a point is about 3 tempi...
Minor pieces are traditionally worth about three pawns.
> ..what value would you all put on the right to castle?
Much too dependent on the position to put a value on it.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Simple Vomit (TM): it's like a pile
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of puke but it has no moving parts!
|
|
