Fairy Chess Piece Values

#39 i know about the levelling effect, i have read "about the values of chess pieces" a few times by now

#40 ferz is stronger than wazir because it has two forward directions

also how is alfil + wazir better than ferz + wazir given your whole "can checkmate" idea

and, checkmate potential isnt the only thing games value

if so, a piece that can move to any dark square is infinitely worse than a rook, when it isnt

how is checkmate potential similar to the levelling effect (which is what you describe)

and checkmate potential has nothing with the pieces potential to capture another piece 

they are two separate things

and really, while ab can capture queen, which is stronger than it, queen can do the same of.... lets say raven for example (rook + knightrider)

so basically, checkmate potential and the levelling effect are two separate things, and we dont say that a knight is better than a bishop because it can capture a queen without being capturable itself

Levelling effect really ges beyond piece values, and pays attention to the context the pieces operate in.

A king in corner and an archbishop two steps diagonally away.

I have to be honest to admit that I had some difficulty in forcing checkmate with archbishop against single king. Mate was a few moves away but I couldn't do it on the first try.

that is literally what that statement covers

a 2,1 square is orthogonally adjacent to a 2,2 square

and yes, that is the necessity for a mating position to exist with K+_ v K

The joke is if a king foolishly goes to 1,1, an archbishop wins by going to 3,3.

this calculation doesnt care if the opponent is foolish

lets take a position where the losing king is at 1,1 the winning king is at 1,3

then, any piece that can do like said (even a 7,1 leap and a 7,2 leap work) can be attacking 1,1 and 2,1 at the same time and the king is checkmated

and this is the logic used by muller to explain why orthogonally adjacent attacks are important

If a piece could attack any black squares, white is mated on turn 0. Move your king on turn 1 is not possible.

this is also irrespective of starting position

How is gold general has 5 value while Mann only has 3? Mann covers more tiles than gold

Is there universal consensus on the values for chancellor (rook knight) and archbishop? (knight bishop). Will they change depending on the game, such as Capablanca's Chess values being different from Gothic chess values?

There will never be 'universal consensus' about anything, but it has been well established by computer testing that the a Chancellor on 8x8 or 10x8 board in a FIDE-like context is worth about half a Pawn less than a Queen, while an Archbishop is worth about 3/4 of a Pawn less than Queen. Initial placement of the pieces has no measurable effect, unless the start position is non-quiet, and a trade can be forced that effectively eliminates a piece from the game before it can demonstrate its true potential.

Board size, OTOH, can have a large effect; the difference of Q vs C and A increases with board size, as the Queen extends its range in 8 directions that it moves, while C and A only do that in 4 directions.

Piece values are an approximation anyway, and even in Capablance/Gothic Chess the relative value of Q, C or A versus a pair of weaker pieces (such as Rook + Knight) depends strongly on the presence of the other super-pieces. E.g. Q is significantly better than R+N when C and A are not present (as in orthodox Chess), but R+N have the upper hand when C and A are present. This because the C and A suffer much more from the presence of an enemy R+N as they suffer from the presence of an enemy Q. (It is in fact the Q that suffers there!)

HGMuller wrote:

There will never be 'universal consensus' about anything, but it has been well established by computer testing that the a Chancellor on 8x8 or 10x8 board in a FIDE-like context is worth about half a Pawn less than a Queen, while an Archbishop is worth about 3/4 of a Pawn less than Queen. Initial placement of the pieces has no measurable effect, unless the start position is non-quiet, and a trade can be forced that effectively eliminates a piece from the game before it can demonstrate its true potential.

Board size, OTOH, can have a large effect; the difference of Q vs C and A increases with board size, as the Queen extends its range in 8 directions that it moves, while C and A only do that in 4 directions.

Piece values are an approximation anyway, and even in Capablance/Gothic Chess the relative value of Q, C or A versus a pair of weaker pieces (such as Rook + Knight) depends strongly on the presence of the other super-pieces. E.g. Q is significantly better than R+N when C and A are not present (as in orthodox Chess), but R+N have the upper hand when C and A are present. This because the C and A suffer much more from the presence of an enemy R+N as they suffer from the presence of an enemy Q. (It is in fact the Q that suffers there!)

Well thank you for your insights. It's more complicated than I imagined.

What about the corresponding values if Q = 9.0

HGM 😃

Maybe in the opening the Archbishop is the most versatile piece. In the late middle game, if a Chancellor has room to run, it can become the most dominant of the 3 big majors. In the endgame with few Pawns remaining, I’d say the Queen is the most dominant.

Trice say there is the term Gothic "exchange" minor exchange, medium exchange, major exchange.

Trice say there is the term Gothic "exchange" minor exchange, medium exchange, major exchange.

The whole explanation is here:

looks like the link was suppressed

Knight and rook give some sort of synergy bonus. But not as much as a bishop and rook.

Archbishop value 8 indicates that a knight move pattern yield lot of synergy +2 compared to +1 for the queen.