H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Dec 10, 2018 11:43 PM UTC:
What you say is inconsistent. If top-200 players would get different results in B vs N imbalances as patzers like me, why should I (and other patzers) care the slightest what results they got? They might score 90% with the Bishop, but if at my level of play the Knight would win more often than not, I would do wise to consider the Knight more valuable.
Either piece values are a meaningless concept, because they are different at every level of play, or they are the same for everyone, in which case it wouldn't hurt the slightest to take the statistics from a pool of patzers.
Well, I have never seen a chess book for beginners that says: super-GMs consider a Rook worth 5 Pawns, but you are a beginner, so for you the Knight is more valuable...
What you say is inconsistent. If top-200 players would get different results in B vs N imbalances as patzers like me, why should I (and other patzers) care the slightest what results they got? They might score 90% with the Bishop, but if at my level of play the Knight would win more often than not, I would do wise to consider the Knight more valuable.
Either piece values are a meaningless concept, because they are different at every level of play, or they are the same for everyone, in which case it wouldn't hurt the slightest to take the statistics from a pool of patzers.
Well, I have never seen a chess book for beginners that says: super-GMs consider a Rook worth 5 Pawns, but you are a beginner, so for you the Knight is more valuable...