EZ,
Can't you say the same about the Q?

No, because the Queen isn't the target.

EZoto

In article m,
EZoto wrote:


EZ,
Can't you say the same about the Q?

No, because the Queen isn't the target.



Yeah, but if you lose it--without some pretty friggin' serious
compensation--you're gonna lose the king, too.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On 20 Jan 2004 19:35:29 GMT, (PJDBAD) wrote:

In the opening and middle game I'd say about 1.5
to 2 points. In the endgame - at least 2.5 points, probably more
(perhaps as much as 4)

I think your opinion is correct. That is what I've read. The King is at least
as strong as any minor piece.

Mobility is a strong factor in the "points" a piece is worth. That is
why I put the lower end of a king in the endgame at 2.5, lower than a
knight, based on mobility. However, the king has the great benefit of
being able to keep the other king away (or push him around), which
adds to its value, making it worth more than 2.5.


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

"EZoto" wrote in message
s.com...

If there is anything about chess computers that has taught the player
today it is how strong the King itself really is in chess. Computer
chess has shown humans today how to really play with the King. That's
why chess will never be solved because even though the King is the
target it is the King himself on the chessboard that makes it
impossible to for the computer. Give a computer program a piece with
8 squares to choose from and it is like a dream come true for the
machine. When computers play computers it is amazing how the King is
used. Maybe that's why humans lose to the computer. We don't realize
how strong and important the King is as a complete piece. Maybe that
is why computers are still weak in the endgame. To the computer a
King is not a piece that should always be tucked away into safety.
The one game with Deep Fritz and Kramnik where Kramnik lost testify's
to that. Just my opinion.

EZoto

This whole thread is completely pointless as both sides always
have a king.

Regards

Terry wrote:
This whole thread is completely pointless as both sides always
have a king.

King position is quite important, though...


Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Chair (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ chair but it's full of holes!

David Richerby wrote in
message ...
Terry wrote:
This whole thread is completely pointless as both sides always have a king.

King position is quite important, though.

For further reading: "King Power in Chess" by GM Edmar Mednis

--Nick