Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Vanguard Chess. Game on 16x16 board, with 48 pieces per player. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Jul 1, 2023 08:46 PM UTC:

Well H.G., in this case you didn't say 'well known to be completely wrong' when addressing the chance of one piece being weaker than the other on a much larger board than 8x8. However, who is to decide for sure that something is clearly wrong, unless that is going to be blindingly obvious to most readers anyway? In chess literature, far more newbies suffer from wrong or confusing advice on strategy than on quibbling piece values disputes or tactical instruction, I would note (neglecting to practice tactics is another matter).

I would think the Comments section would be equated as valueless too, if you're thinking people shouldn't bother to read it. The Comments section, however loses some of its value IMHO when there are a great many comments, and a vital one gets buried if it was made at a much earlier date.

P.S.: Is KNAD [almost] the same as a very powerful Lion in Chu Shogi (which can make 2 captures in one move, as does the non-jumping Lioneer)? I assume Joe Joyce's Jumping General was meant [by H.G., in place of a Lioneer] - not a KNAD or Chu Shogi Lion, either; I'd value Joe's piece type a little more than a Q on 8x8 anyway, and probably not as much as a Q on a significantly larger board, based on earlier 'tentative estimates' (which is how I've referred to my fairy piece values in Notes sections to date, as a caveat for the uninitiated).