H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, Jul 2, 2023 09:35 AM UTC:
OK, I overlooked that the Lioneer had the ability to double capture. (Has this been the case from the first draft?) The move diagram is misleading, and suggests it just has a 2-step 'area move', like the Falconer. You really should use other symbols in the K squares than those for ordinary moves (e.g. a star) if they are hit-and-run targets.
Even then 110 vs 160 describes the relative values in Chu Shogi, with a Lion that can jump, on a 12x12 board; my experience with Tenjiku Shogi (16x16) is that the Lion is a rather unimportant piece there, and even the Lion Hawk, (which in addition moves like B), is valued less than Q by most players.
Anyway, I think it is 'blindingly obvious' that (1) the relative values of sliders and leapers depends on board size, (2) values are not simple additions of individual move comtributions, but involve synergy (i.e. Q > R + B), and (3) moves that can be blocked contribute progressively less as it gets more easy to block those. Any system that does not account for those effects will be badly flawed, and its results should not be presented like there is any truth in them. (So at least accompanied by a strong disclaimer that it is for another board size, or which aspects of the piece are ignored.)
Comments, in the stage of unpublished articles, serve the purpose of pointing out flaws in the submitted material, so the author can improve the quality by addressing the criticism. So it doesn't matter if the general readership completely ignores those, as long as the editor responsible for publishing the article takes them into account. When the criticism is justified it will be incorporated / addressed through revision of the article, and there is no need to read them in the comments anymore.
BTW, the Interactive Diagram has a heuristic for determining piece values that does take board size and synergy into account, as well as that pieces in a game will be placed on beter-than-average squares. The values can be viewed by clicking the header of the 'move' column of the piece table. You could use the Play-Test Applet by setting the board to 16x16, assigning the desired moves to some pieces in the table (in so far they were not already there) and then ask for the values. (Which might take some calculation time for the large board and table, so be patient...)
OK, I overlooked that the Lioneer had the ability to double capture. (Has this been the case from the first draft?) The move diagram is misleading, and suggests it just has a 2-step 'area move', like the Falconer. You really should use other symbols in the K squares than those for ordinary moves (e.g. a star) if they are hit-and-run targets.
Even then 110 vs 160 describes the relative values in Chu Shogi, with a Lion that can jump, on a 12x12 board; my experience with Tenjiku Shogi (16x16) is that the Lion is a rather unimportant piece there, and even the Lion Hawk, (which in addition moves like B), is valued less than Q by most players.
Anyway, I think it is 'blindingly obvious' that (1) the relative values of sliders and leapers depends on board size, (2) values are not simple additions of individual move comtributions, but involve synergy (i.e. Q > R + B), and (3) moves that can be blocked contribute progressively less as it gets more easy to block those. Any system that does not account for those effects will be badly flawed, and its results should not be presented like there is any truth in them. (So at least accompanied by a strong disclaimer that it is for another board size, or which aspects of the piece are ignored.)
Comments, in the stage of unpublished articles, serve the purpose of pointing out flaws in the submitted material, so the author can improve the quality by addressing the criticism. So it doesn't matter if the general readership completely ignores those, as long as the editor responsible for publishing the article takes them into account. When the criticism is justified it will be incorporated / addressed through revision of the article, and there is no need to read them in the comments anymore.
BTW, the Interactive Diagram has a heuristic for determining piece values that does take board size and synergy into account, as well as that pieces in a game will be placed on beter-than-average squares. The values can be viewed by clicking the header of the 'move' column of the piece table. You could use the Play-Test Applet by setting the board to 16x16, assigning the desired moves to some pieces in the table (in so far they were not already there) and then ask for the values. (Which might take some calculation time for the large board and table, so be patient...)