user21232: At my school, we play with a time limit, and the winner is decided based on points (for example, a pawn is 1, a rook 5, a knight 3).
Let's say my queen is taken by my opponent, scoring 9 points. If I get my pawn to the other end and exchange it for a queen, do they lose those points?

user6885: As others have pointed out, the points values themselves are merely an initial value to get you started.  Over many many years, people have found that generally trading three pawns for a bishop is a fair trade.
The point values are just a tool to get you started.  They're a way for you to not make mistakes by trading valuable pieces for less valuable pieces.  But really, its the entire position that matters.
Consider this hypothetical.  Your opponent has a pawn on the 7th rank.  On the next turn, they can promote it to a queen.  You have the potential to trade a rook for that pawn.  Is it a good trade?  The "5 points for a rook" versus "1 point for a pawn" fails to account for the position.  In this intentionally extreme example, trading a rook for a pawn may be a great trade, because it puts you in a better position.
Indeed, it can be even more extreme.  You can construct some clever back-rank mate problems where a pawn promoting to a queen or a rook is checkmate.  If you can't get out of it otherwise, it would be worth sacrificing three, four, or even five whole pieces just to prevent that pawn from promoting.  Checkmate trumps any and all point calculations, always.

user20721: Material, aka “points,” is just one factor in deciding who is ahead.  There is time, space, material, position, tactics, zugzwang and other things that will determine who is doing better.
Your school needs to stop counting points as it is, by itself, meaningless. 
If you have a time limit, then limit the game time so that it finishes before the limit. Otherwise, some player will gain a pawn and then just sit to win by one point.  So get clocks and use them to limit the time each player can take so the game ends by the time of your period that you have to play. 

user12629: As has been said, in ordinary chess the points do not count, and the only person who can definitively tell you your school's rules is your chess coach.
But that said, the purpose of looking at the points is to be a quick way to answer the question, "who is winning this game?" So if you promote, it makes sense to take away those points (and give him a point for a pawn instead, since that pawn is now off the board.) 
Let's say you have a pawn and your opponent has a rook. Your opponent is winning the game, because a rook is stronger than a pawn. But if you promote the pawn to a queen, now you are winning the game, not your opponent; you have a queen and they have a rook, and a queen is stronger than a rook. It wouldn't make sense to declare them the winner just because your queen is a promoted one. You shouldn't have to think back the whole game to remember what was taken at the time; you should be able to just look at what's on the board at the end.

user19877: Points in chess mean nothing with respect to the actual play of the game with regards to the rules. They are only a reference to give players a general sense of what value each piece has relative to the next piece.
In essence, if you lose your queen, 9 points, but promote a pawn, you gain 9 points minus one for the pawn, so you would still be down one in material, but again, that is just a relative reference to give you an idea where you stand.
These relative point values are estimates, and depending on who you talk to, they may vary. Here is a list of various values that strong players have assigned over the years here. Bobby Fischer said that the bishop was worth 3.25 because he loved bishops.

21232: <p>At my school, we play with a time limit, and the winner is decided based on points (for example, a pawn is 1, a rook 5, a knight 3).</p>

<p>Let's say my queen is taken by my opponent, scoring 9 points. If I get my pawn to the other end and exchange it for a queen, do they lose those points?</p>
 6885: <p>As others have pointed out, the points values themselves are merely an initial value to get you started.  Over many many years, people have found that <em>generally</em> trading three pawns for a bishop is a fair trade.</p>

<p>The point values are just a tool to get you started.  They're a way for you to not make mistakes by trading valuable pieces for less valuable pieces.  But really, its the entire position that matters.</p>

<p>Consider this hypothetical.  Your opponent has a pawn on the 7th rank.  On the next turn, they can promote it to a queen.  You have the potential to trade a rook for that pawn.  Is it a good trade?  The "5 points for a rook" versus "1 point for a pawn" fails to account for the position.  In this intentionally extreme example, trading a rook for a pawn may be a great trade, because it puts you in a better position.</p>

<p>Indeed, it can be even more extreme.  You can construct some clever back-rank mate problems where a pawn promoting to a queen or a rook is checkmate.  If you can't get out of it otherwise, it would be worth sacrificing three, four, or even five whole pieces just to prevent that pawn from promoting.  Checkmate trumps any and all point calculations, always.</p>
 20721: <p>Material, aka “points,” is just one factor in deciding who is ahead.  There is time, space, material, position, tactics, zugzwang and other things that will determine who is doing better.</p>

<p>Your school needs to stop counting points as it is, by itself, meaningless. </p>

<p>If you have a time limit, then limit the game time so that it finishes before the limit. Otherwise, some player will gain a pawn and then just sit to win by one point.  So get clocks and use them to limit the time each player can take so the game ends by the time of your period that you have to play. </p>
 12629: <p>As has been said, in ordinary chess the points do not count, and the only person who can definitively tell you your school's rules is your chess coach.</p>

<p>But that said, the purpose of looking at the points is to be a quick way to answer the question, "who is winning this game?" So if you promote, it makes sense to take away those points (and give him a point for a pawn instead, since that pawn is now off the board.) </p>

<p>Let's say you have a pawn and your opponent has a rook. Your opponent is winning the game, because a rook is stronger than a pawn. But if you promote the pawn to a queen, now you are winning the game, not your opponent; you have a queen and they have a rook, and a queen is stronger than a rook. It wouldn't make sense to declare them the winner just because your queen is a promoted one. You shouldn't have to think back the whole game to remember what was taken at the time; you should be able to just look at what's on the board at the end.</p>
 19877: <p>Points in chess mean nothing with respect to the actual play of the game with regards to the rules. They are only a reference to give players a general sense of what value each piece has relative to the next piece.</p>

<p>In essence, if you lose your queen, 9 points, but promote a pawn, you gain 9 points minus one for the pawn, so you would still be down one in material, but again, that is just a relative reference to give you an idea where you stand.</p>

<p>These relative point values are estimates, and depending on who you talk to, they may vary. Here is a list of various values that strong players have assigned over the years <a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-piece-value" rel="noreferrer">here</a>. Bobby Fischer said that the bishop was worth 3.25 because he loved bishops.</p>
