Maybe an age old question, why is the queen worth much? 9 seems arbitrary.

Piece values really don't seem to be accurate unless I'm really missing the point which wouldn't be the first time....not even today.

If the B is 3 points then why in the world would the queen be worth 9? It's pretty obvious that 3 in bishops are better than one queen isnt it.

Why not just say "pawn is worth least, then the horsey, then the bishops are maybe a little more then the knight and the queen is with most", because the values of the pieces need amending.

Why 9 and not seven? So a queen for two bishops and a pawn (and that is pushing it).

This ain't trolling I really don't see the logic in the values.

Oh, I then you have bad good placement which would without doubt affect effect the value of the pieces. Like bad bishop Vs good bishop.

Because the queen is a special piece, it is like a bishop and rook so 3+5=8. But because of her powers, one point is generally added so the "normal" value of the queen is 9.

But that doesn't mean she's always worth 9 points, sometimes she's worth 12 points and sometimes 5 points. It is just an arbitrary and theoretical representation of her strength, but it isn't always like that.

The Wikipedia article is pretty exhaustive:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value
There was also a blog post about it (including variants)

Hey there!
@GiGGidi
Feel free to ask, nobody will hate you for asking a question :)
The system behind piece values is important to understand. Every piece has a relative strength depending on the game position you're in. For example a rook stuck in his corner is worth literally nothing, a rook which helps to force-checkmate your opponent is worth very very much on the other side. Same with every other piece, it depends on the position. That is why 3 bishops can be way better than one queen. But there are also positions, where 3 bishops are worse than one queen because a piece, which has control over a whole file for example is needed. That is why you can't generally say "this piece is better than that piece". The general piece values you're talking of are an in average calculated value over millions of games. This is why many people are saying that a bishop is slightly better than a Knight, because (it again depends on the position) but there are in average more positions, where a bishop is better than a Knight. You can see it is a big topic with many opinions and because of its dependence on the position, the "values of the pieces" are just an approach, but not really accurate.

I read a blog post about it a few weeks ago, here it is, it is way better than my explanation so if you are interested ;): lichess.org/@/ubdip/blog/finding-the-value-of-pieces/PByOBlNB

Have a nice day!

3 well coordinated minor pieces can very well be better than a queen. Only 2 bishops (with extra pawns), no way, unless you are actually queening those pawns.

queen vs rook+minor piece+pawn - (in a middlegame) I take the queen, usually

queen vs 2 rooks - about equal

@GiGGidi
Piece valuations are just relative it actually depends on position.
And there are quite number of failures of so-called valuations of chess pieces.
For very rough idea do this:
How many pawns can a particular chess piece handle and nullify effect?
You will get your answer.
But it's only rough as everything depends on position in chess.
And valuation of a piece is obtained from a particular position so as to play perfectly.

@GiGGidi said in #1:
> Piece values really don't seem to be accurate unless I'm really missing the point which wouldn't be the first time....not even today.
>
> If the B is 3 points then why in the world would the queen be worth 9? It's pretty obvious that 3 in bishops are better than one queen isnt it.
>
> Why not just say "pawn is worth least, then the horsey, then the bishops are maybe a little more then the knight and the queen is with most", because the values of the pieces need amending.

A system which quantifies piece values is more useful than a system which doesn't so more than ordering the values. If all you know that a Rook is worth more than a Knight or a Bishop, how would you value an exchange of a Rook for two minor pieces?

>
> Why 9 and not seven? So a queen for two bishops and a pawn (and that is pushing it).

If you want to value a Queen as 7 pawns, noone is stopping you. There are dozens of systems of valuing chess pieces. When I started with chess, 1-3-3-5-10 as values was often used. Fisher used 1-3-3.25-5-9, which values the Queen equal to three Knights, but slightly less than three Bishops. And three Bishops to be worth slightly less than two Rooks. Kasparov has stated 1-3-3.15-4.5-9, which gives the same relative ordering to three minor pieces vs Queen as Fisher, but which values 2 Rooks as equivalent to a Queen, while Fisher finds two Rooks more powerful.

>
> This ain't trolling I really don't see the logic in the values.

You don't have to. But I give a system used by Kasparov or Fisher more worth than a system from a random post here. People who have lived and breath chess for decades typically have the knowledge and experience to estimate the relative value of pieces.

> Oh, I then you have bad good placement which would without doubt affect effect the value of the pieces. Like bad bishop Vs good bishop.

Of course. Relative piece value is only a starting point in evaluating positions.

Not arbitrary. Values derived from many games over many years, based on experience. Do you think somebody just made them up out of thin air? Lasker said, in his judgment, a queen would be a fair trade for a rook, a minor piece, and a pawn. He wasn't merely playing at arithmetic.

It‘s an average value. A Queen would win easy against 8 pawns in their home position.

Q(9) vs 2R(10) depends on the position. I wish it's simpler to post a game.