Kevin Pacey wrote on Wed, Nov 8, 2017 06:59 PM UTC:
Hi Aurelian
As chess author Cyrus Lakdawala wrote regarding a position in his Slav book where Black just played ...Qxb2-pawn, after White offered it, "Anger flashes when our values are questioned". For what it's worth I have somewhat less invested in such discussions. My chess play does depend a bit on believing bishops are normally worth a tiny bit more than knights, though, so I do have some real skin in the game. In general I still wonder how much is up for debate on questions of piece values, at least on this website. Otherwise, H.G. has indirectly done me at least one big favour on the web in the past, in regard to my Sac Chess variant, so I try not to overdo things too much.
On another topic, I'm having a problem finding a suitable new minor piece type for a possible 10x8 variant that's close to being Capablanca Chess. In fact it's an impossible problem to solve, given my desires for such a piece. An elephant-ferz doesn't quite seem right, as though I do want the piece type to be symmetrically moving, I want it to be worth about a N or B on a 10x8 board, which I'm doubting in the case of the elephant-ferz, and I also ideally wish to place bishops on certain squares in the setup, yet have all pawns protected, and avoid possible common early exchanges of pieces from the start.. So far an elephant-wazir would be perfect, except it's hard to develop in the setup unless it takes a good square away from a knight, and in the setup I have in mind it would also guard the rook beside it, which somehow seems unattractive. The next best piece would be the guard, but it's a bit boring and also tedious to develop from the setup. The moral seems to be that sometimes you cannot have everything you want, even in chess variants, where you might even invent a piece.
Hi Aurelian
As chess author Cyrus Lakdawala wrote regarding a position in his Slav book where Black just played ...Qxb2-pawn, after White offered it, "Anger flashes when our values are questioned". For what it's worth I have somewhat less invested in such discussions. My chess play does depend a bit on believing bishops are normally worth a tiny bit more than knights, though, so I do have some real skin in the game. In general I still wonder how much is up for debate on questions of piece values, at least on this website. Otherwise, H.G. has indirectly done me at least one big favour on the web in the past, in regard to my Sac Chess variant, so I try not to overdo things too much.
On another topic, I'm having a problem finding a suitable new minor piece type for a possible 10x8 variant that's close to being Capablanca Chess. In fact it's an impossible problem to solve, given my desires for such a piece. An elephant-ferz doesn't quite seem right, as though I do want the piece type to be symmetrically moving, I want it to be worth about a N or B on a 10x8 board, which I'm doubting in the case of the elephant-ferz, and I also ideally wish to place bishops on certain squares in the setup, yet have all pawns protected, and avoid possible common early exchanges of pieces from the start.. So far an elephant-wazir would be perfect, except it's hard to develop in the setup unless it takes a good square away from a knight, and in the setup I have in mind it would also guard the rook beside it, which somehow seems unattractive. The next best piece would be the guard, but it's a bit boring and also tedious to develop from the setup. The moral seems to be that sometimes you cannot have everything you want, even in chess variants, where you might even invent a piece.