# Chess: How useful would the king be as a regular piece?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-how-useful-would-the-king-be-as-a-regular-piece/463093
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [September 11, 2008, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-how-useful-would-the-king-be-as-a-regular-piece/463093 "2008-09-11T12:56:42Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2008, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-how-useful-would-the-king-be-as-a-regular-piece/463093/1 "2008-09-11T12:56:42Z")
This is just the kind of question that is of no value or consequence in any way, but you find yourself spending an absurd amount of time thinking about đ
â Trying in General Questions, because Iâm sure other people in chessâ long history have thought about this, and there might be an actual factual answer â
So, obviously this question depends heavily on what circumstances a king could be a regular piece.
So letâs say we start with an ordinary board configuration. Then we have a rule that at the start of the game both players can elect to change one of their pawns to a KingPawn (mmm, king prawnâŚ).
A KingPawn being a piece that moves and attacks like a king, but can be lost without losing the game. But otherwise itâs like a king: it canât be promoted, or move two squares at the start, or do âen passantâ.
What would the value of this piece would be? Would it be more useful than, say, a bishop?
Or can we even go to the level of giving it a score?
(The scores of the other pieces, at game start, being:
Pawn = 1 point
Knight = 3 points
Bishop = 3-3.5 points (some disagreement on bishop value)
Rook = 5 points
Queen = 9+ points (beginners value queens higher))
---
### Author:  [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2008, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-how-useful-would-the-king-be-as-a-regular-piece/463093/2 "2008-09-11T13:34:09Z")
It would threaten eight squares, the same as knight. A knight is hindered more by the edges, but can move across the board quicker. A bishop threatens between 7 and 13 squares, on average something like 10 squares. A rook threatens 14. So I would say a king pawn would be worth about the same as a knight.
---
### Author:  [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2008, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-how-useful-would-the-king-be-as-a-regular-piece/463093/3 "2008-09-11T13:38:31Z")
> [@Usram](#):
>
> So I would say a king pawn would be worth slightly more than a knight.
I agree; every chess book that Iâve seen which addresses the question puts the king in the knight/bishop range. Beginners without a lot of endgame experience are sometimes surprised by this, but the king is a fairly powerful attacking piece, once the board becomes empty enough that it can be safely employed.
---
### Author:  [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-how-useful-would-the-king-be-as-a-regular-piece/463093/4 "2008-09-11T13:55:21Z")
Indeed, the non-royal King (sometimes called a Mann) is about as powerful as a minor piece, if not more so. He lacks even the Knightâs range but is much handier at close quarters - a King can hold off three connected passed pawns, a Knight is apt to get murdered by them. And of course mate with a King and Mann would be achievable whereas mate by a King and minor piece ordinarily isnât.
A Knight can fork enemy pieces, a Bishop can pin or skewer, but a King can attack adjacent units, operate on squares of both colour regardless of tempo, and attack both a pawn and the square in front of the pawn - none of which the minor pieces can do.
Taken all in all, in an ending otherwise roughly equal, if you can immobilise the enemy King at a cost of tying up your own Bishop or Knight, you should go for it - your King should be better than the enemy minor piece.
---
### Author:  [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)
#### Post date: [September 11, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-how-useful-would-the-king-be-as-a-regular-piece/463093/5 "2008-09-11T15:26:41Z")
Thanks everyone.
I also found something on Wikipedia :smack:
âAs an assessment of the kingâs capability as an offensive piece in the endgame, it is often considered to be slightly stronger than a bishop or knight â Emanuel Lasker gave it the value of a knight plus a pawn (i.e. four points on the scale of chess piece point value) (Lasker 1934:73). It is better at defending nearby pawns than the knight is, and it is better at attacking them than the bishop is (Ward 1996:13).â