George Duke wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2017 04:36 PM UTC:
Waterloo -- better than all-empty-space Grand Chess anyway.
Then this one mentioned as also using Commoner/Man is even better and meeting CVPage standards: Medieval_(europe).
The world expert at values, H.G. Muller joined this discussion, and I still hold out for value of nearer 6.0 for Falcon than Rook 5.0. I just played three Falcon games on Game Courier and early Falcon uses and forks were decisive in all of them whilst the Rooks mostly sat in place. It's matter of teaching programs maybe to open with Falcon; then the gap is filled in value between Rook and Queen, the way Man/Commoner/Guard can fill in between Bishop and Rook lower scale for beginners. (But Muller is right that anything towards 7.0 for Falcon among the four fundamental chess pieces was irresponsibly unsupported.)
Vickalan's point is good one, that better CVs have clear value in exchange. That was recurrent theme for years in our thread on Game Design: Value_In_Exchange. When most though not all pieces have different distinguishable values, there is intriguing Flight and Fight.
Anyway Man is just a Queen, and that's how to get its value. If full Queen is 9.0, then develop method for Queen limited to 6 steps not 7. Then get limited Queen up to 5 spaces, then Q4, Q3, Q2, Man. Since Q6 is near Q7 but others progressively detrimental, it might go: Q6 8.6, Q5 8.0, Q4 7.2, Q3 6.2, Q2 5.0, Man 3.6. No values in isolation since it depends on other pieces as well as array and rules.
Principle of value in exchange is why I dislike all yes all 50 Carrera variants, that three pieces are boringly near-same-valued.
Waterloo -- better than all-empty-space Grand Chess anyway.
Then this one mentioned as also using Commoner/Man is even better and meeting CVPage standards: Medieval_(europe).
The world expert at values, H.G. Muller joined this discussion, and I still hold out for value of nearer 6.0 for Falcon than Rook 5.0. I just played three Falcon games on Game Courier and early Falcon uses and forks were decisive in all of them whilst the Rooks mostly sat in place. It's matter of teaching programs maybe to open with Falcon; then the gap is filled in value between Rook and Queen, the way Man/Commoner/Guard can fill in between Bishop and Rook lower scale for beginners. (But Muller is right that anything towards 7.0 for Falcon among the four fundamental chess pieces was irresponsibly unsupported.)
Vickalan's point is good one, that better CVs have clear value in exchange. That was recurrent theme for years in our thread on Game Design: Value_In_Exchange. When most though not all pieces have different distinguishable values, there is intriguing Flight and Fight.
Anyway Man is just a Queen, and that's how to get its value. If full Queen is 9.0, then develop method for Queen limited to 6 steps not 7. Then get limited Queen up to 5 spaces, then Q4, Q3, Q2, Man. Since Q6 is near Q7 but others progressively detrimental, it might go: Q6 8.6, Q5 8.0, Q4 7.2, Q3 6.2, Q2 5.0, Man 3.6. No values in isolation since it depends on other pieces as well as array and rules.
Principle of value in exchange is why I dislike all yes all 50 Carrera variants, that three pieces are boringly near-same-valued.