Most (all?) people who play atomic chess began by playing normal chess
first. Because of this they start off thinking in the same way about the
pieces and their respective values. In many cases this can be correct (e.g.
knights are better in blocked positions, the bishop pair is strong....) but
it often isn’t. As a player improves they will see certain situations where
the normal chess point system lets them down, one of the most basic is as
follows, with black to move:
|
|
You may look at this position and think that black is a bishop for 2 pawns
(‘1 point’) up. But that would be wrong. He is actually 2 pawns for a bishop
DOWN! A quick think over the position backs up this claim:
• Black must move either his bishop or king, when white will be able to
advance his f or h pawn another square towards queening.
• If black sets up another blockade with his bishop on f8 white can move his
king when black has the same problem again, with this resource removed. E.g.
1...Be7 2.f6 Bd6 3.f7 Bf8 4.Ka1.
|
|
• The kings are too far apart for black to connect them (and even if he
could white would still have a winning endgame after swapping the bishop for
one of the pawns - see ‘Basic Endgames’). E.g. if we carry on from the last
point: 4...Bd6 5.f8=Q Bxf8 6.Kb1 Kg6 7.h7 Kf5 8.h8=Q Ke4 8.Qd8 when the
black king is cut off from white’s and the white queen will have no problem
mating alone.
 FEN: 5b2/5P1k/7P/8/8/p7/P7/K7 |
This example isn’t a special case where the 2 pawns prevail over the usually
superior bishop but quite a common scenario to demonstrate my point.
2 pawns also generally overcome a lone knight and sometimes even force a
rook into conceding a perpetual check.
When playing atomic chess I usually do not think in points at all. When
considering various piece swaps I think from experience which combinations
of pieces are better than others and use this to decide upon a move. However
for this page I thought it might be useful to some people who are new to the
game (and maybe some who aren’t?!) to have some sort of idea of how strong
the pieces are in relation to each other. After a little thought I came up
with the following:
| Type of Piece | Normal Chess | Atomic Chess |
| Pawn | 1 | 1 |
| Bishop | 3 | 1.5 |
| Knight | 3 | 1.5 |
| Rook | 5 | 3 |
| Queen | 9 | 6 |
Of course this is very general and should not be taken as a science, much as
in normal chess. Also there are exceptions where this system falls short
(like in normal chess 2 minor pieces generally outweigh a rook and pawn
despite being equal on points). Perhaps one of the main points to be taken
in is that in relation to normal chess the pawns and queen have increased in
their value.
To justify why I have decided on these point scores I have given some
information on each piece:
The Pawn:
In atomic the strength of the pawn is greatly increased. The main reason for
this is inherent in the rules of the game. Unlike all the other pieces
pawns are only destroyed when they take or are taken themselves, giving them
a little extra power in relation to other pieces (as in the standard point
system the pawn has been given the basic value of start).
The Bishop and Knight:
Although in normal chess there is a constant battle deciding whether the
bishop or knight is superior I think the majority of players would generally
favour the bishop. In atomic this is reversed. Being unable to reach squares
of both colours is a problem unique to the bishop and this weakness is often
shown in the endgame. Although I feel that in a direct comparison knights
are usually favourable the bishop pair can be a fairly potent weapon, more
much more so I feel than in regular chess. Because of this, and because I
did not feel confident estimating either value outside of an interval of 0.5
points, I gave the bishop and knight the same value. Both of these values I
think are certainly correct within an interval of 0.5, although if 0.1
intervals were used I would rate knight higher than the bishop.
The Rook:
As briefly explained in ‘Tactical Ideas’ the rook is generally not involved
in tricks to win material but rather in direct attacks on the king (although
often the defence has to sacrifice material to avoid this). Because of this
and because it’s difficult to develop quickly the strength of the rook is
usually shown in the late middlegame and endgame. At these stages of the
game an active rook is very strong and must be defended against with care.
The Queen:
The queen is undoubtedly the hardest piece to defend against. When used well
it constantly generates tactical ideas from the beginning of the game right
through to the end, or until it is destroyed. The queen was the hardest
value to decide and I tried to settle on an reasonably objective one. Any
material imbalances involving the queen must be handled very carefully by
both sides especially at fast live time controls as any slip can often
become fatal. Even though objectively perhaps some combinations of pieces
are better than the queen practical chances are often not worse. E.g. look
at the position following 1.Nh3 f6 2.e3 e6 3.Qh5!? g6 4.Qb5 c6 5.Qxb7.
 FEN: 3qkbnr/p2p3p/2p1ppp1/8/8/4P2N/PPPP1PPP/RNB1KB1R |
Although on my point system white is ‘1 point’ up, in my opinion an
objective evaluation, I would not say that white is clearly better in a
practical situation, as he would be being simply a pawn up, but that there
is still all to play for.