From: Eduard Werner GMX DE> Date: 15 nov 2002 Subject: Re: The value of pieces to Shogi From: Chiaki Ito MAIL COM> Subject: Re: The value of pieces to Shogi Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:33:03 -0800 > If you talk about the value of pieces in Shogi, it is better to introduce > other factors such as the solidarity of castle and efficiency of pieces. > After all, you need to know the value of pieces because you want to make a > judgment on the situation. In some cases in Shogi, it is better to have > nothing there than to have a piece, a knight with its head unprotected for > instance, because it is so vulnerable sitting there just to be exchanged for > a less valued piece like a pawn. This, I found, is not true in Chess. Well, as Chiaki is a much stronger shogi player than me I'd suppose he's a rather strong chess player as well (and stronger than me) so I should probably be silent. But I think such cases do exist in chess as well. Imagine having a pawn with a weak square in front of if on your opponent's open row (don't know how they are called in English) -- you might *want* to sacrifice it to free your play if you only could -- or a Bishop blocked by Pawns on its original square so that you can't get neither it nor the Rook into play. And even your wording "for a less valued piece" shows clearly a value hierarchy which can be seen in handicaps as well: two-piece handicap is R and B, not 2P or 2L or 2S, two-piece is a bigger handicap than R + L although that's two pieces as well, R is a higher handicap than B, and so on. Cheers Edi > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry Kaufman" COMCAST NET> > To: TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:56 PM > Subject: Re: The value of pieces to Shogi > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sam Sloan" ISHIPRESS COM> > > To: TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL> > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:38 PM > > Subject: Re: The value of pieces to Shogi > > > > > > > At 05:23 PM 11/14/2002 -0500, Larry Kaufman wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: Pierre Morteux To: > > > >SHOGI-L TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 > > 3:51 > > > > PM Subject: The value of pieces to Shogi > > > > > > > > > > > >So to Chess, if we take the pawn = 1 as reference, we have : > > > > > > > > - pawn = 1 > > > > - Bishop = 3,5 > > > > - Knight = 3,5 > > > > - Rook = 5 > > > > - Queen = 10 > > > > > > > >To shogi, can make the same assessment? > > > > > > > > > > > > Pierre Morteux I believe it is the most > > > >accurate simple table possible. Pawn = 1 Lance = 4 > > > > Knight = 5 Silver = 7 Gold = 8 Bishop = > 11 > > > > Rook = 13 As for promoted bishop or rook, the > > > >concensus seems to be to add 3 points, making 14 or 16 for those > > pieces. > > > > In the endgame, normal values don't mean much; in particular > > > >generals (especially golds) in hand are good for mating. > Larry > > > >Kaufman, amateur 5 Dan > > > > > > > > > Since Larry Kaufman is a vastly stronger player than I am, I would > > normally > > > defer to his opinion, but in this case I cannot. > > > > > > I believe that the above table of values where Pawn=1 and Lance=4 and so > > on > > > was created just to satisfy requests by Western chess players for a > table > > > of such values. I do not believe that amateur or professional players of > > > shogi in Japan ever use such values. > > > > > > For example, in chess, if one player has a rook and the opponent has a > > > knight and three pawns, all chess players will agree that the player > with > > a > > > kinght and three pawns is a pawn ahead. > > > > > > However, in shogi, nothing like this will ever happen. > > > > > > Sam Sloan > > > > Sorry to dispute you Sam, but in shogi it is quite normal to evaluate > > positions in a manner similar to the example you quoted. Whenever > > unbalanced exchanges occur, the material balance is evaluated by a scale > > such as the one I gave. Of course pros don't have to use the numbers; > they > > immediately know the net result of any material imbalance, just as in > chess > > grandmasters don't have to do math to know that R+B+N is better than Q+P. > > Once material is evaluated, then one considers king safety, pieces in > hand, > > proximity of pieces to kings, etc. etc. The only real difference between > > chess and shogi with regard to material values is that in shogi, it is > > vastly easier to have compensation for material, so it seems that material > > is less important. But in reality it's just that positional values are > much > > larger relative to material ones in shogi; this in no way lessens the > > importance of knowing the correct material balance, assuming we are not > > talking about mating situations. > > As for the values being created for westerners, why do I regularly > find > > them in books written 100% in Japanese? These books probably don't sell > > more than a couple dozen copies to westerners. > > > > Larry Kaufman >