Value of the King in chess - mental gymnastics

[Jannes]

Queen is worth about 9

Rook 5

Bishop 3

Knight 3

Pawn 1

Obviously in regular chess the King has maximum value. But its also obvious that this is quite a reductionistic estimation as the Kings movement options can be compared to the other pieces. The Kings movement is above that of a Pawn and below that of a Queen. 

So I always wondered how much value the King has based on its movement options. 

But because the King cant be used in a regular combative sense as he needs to play in a way to always be preserved and also cant stay in checks its playstyle is quite limited. 

And you also cant really turn chess into a pure combat game as a thought experiment where the goal is to defeat all your enemies pieces to estimate how strong the King is because in chess you win by defeating the King which can be done in a more elegant and effective way then smashing all your enemies pieces before they smash yours. Obviously smash value will collerate strongly with regular value but I think some pieces are better for checkmating then for smashing. For example I think a Bishop is better for checkmates then a Knight who is better for smashing pieces. Depending on the context of course. 

If you ask the question how much value a piece has for checkmating the opposing King then I think you can get to the value of the King. 

This would be my formula: The value of the King for checkmating the opposing King - The material and opportunity cost to defend the King = The value of the King 

In the early game this will likely be negative value and in the late game the value can become positive. 

What do you think is the smash value of the King btw. as I think this is still an important pointer?

[Jannes]

I would give the King about a 3 just for smash value. 

[Joseph Maynor]

The King has infinite value.

[Hojo]

If you dont have a king you cant be Checkmated so its weak. It cant regenerate pieces. The pawns are more powerful than the king a pawn can turn into the queen.

Edited 15 hours ago by Hojo

[integral]

I give the king the value of 0.

1. The king is the most burdenson peice on the board, everything has to bend over backwards to protect it all game and only becomes useful in the end game.
2. It can only move 1 square in any direction so its easy to trap.
3. It cannot capture a protected peice.
4. When attacked "check" everything else must stop to protect it.
5. Its the only peice that cant attack the opponents king. "cant give check". Its the only piece that cant checkmate directly but it can assist in the end game.
6. Rules like castling were invented just to protect it by hiding it in a corner.
7. The king is the only piece that can make you lose the game. 

The King is the worse piece of them all.

It's the piece you shove in a corner and hope your opponent forgets about it.  

Edited 14 hours ago by integral

[integral]

But without the king, most of the beauty of the game would be lost.

Can we build a game of chess without the king and still keep it just as magical? What rules would that be?

Edited 14 hours ago by integral

[Joseph Maynor]

Without the King there is no game.

[Leo Gura]

King is quite powerful and can make or break games if used properly, offensively or to guard key pieces.

Advanced players know how to leverage the king to win games. Newbies don't. A pro's king is aggressive and dangerous.

King is vital in close end-games.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[AION]

King is the head of the snake