Relative Strength Value of Mirror Pieces

Chess piece relative value system conventionally assigns a point value to each piece when assessing its relative strength in potential exchanges. I have noticied no alternative system of valulation ever distinguishes mirror pieces with differing values. For instance, the kingside bishop is able to fend off a back-rank mate while the queenside bishop is of no use. Of course this is opposite if the player decided to long castle. My point is instead of assigning simple values to each piece (e.g. bishop:3) perhaps we can develop a more efficent system that would note which mirror piece is more important depending on long castle or short. 

Appreciate the input waffllemaster, but you didn't address my post. You simply provided a case where the expected value of both matches is similar which doesn't mean it starts that way. The opponent had to make a mistake to result in similar values.

I still strongly feel the relative strength value of mirror pieces alters and one side has domaince over the other depending which castle route you choose. 

kingside castle = kingside piece domaince
queenside castle = queenside piece domaince 

Just thinking out loud here. I agree with you, but not 100%. I would say, the value of pieces is relative to the position. I am not sure if castling is a factor in that. Therefor I use the word position. There are positions where a pawn can promote into a queen and that is nice. But in that same position a pawn promotion into a knight is instant checkmate. I don't see the specific relevance of castling instead of just the general position. But, I do agree that the worth of a piece is primary dictated by the position.

You are overthinking this.

+1 to wafflemaster

Yes, for your example too.

This makes more sense (for positions where an attack is possible).  The backrank example is so arbitrary I thought you were making a joke.

But it is true that minor pieces aren't worth the same.  It depends on the position.  The relative values are meant to represent something like an average across all positions.  Sometimes a knight or bishop is worth more than a rook.  Sometimes a pawn is worth a piece, etc.

I don't know if the generalization that kingside castle = kingside piece dominance, queenside castle = queenside piece dominance can be used all that often. The value of similar pieces always depends on the position and pawn structure: generalizations over which piece is better cannot be based on where the king is placed. For example, when the bishop is developed to c4 and White castles queenside, the "kingside bishop" is more important in attack in defense. When White castles kingside in the Nimzo-Larsen attack, it is the "queenside" b2 bishop that is a strong attacking piece. 

The idea of the relative value of pieces is an old one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value

both bishops are amazingly good. Your question is odd and wafflemaster answered like a boss

Well, the idea of relative values of pieces is one that people fairly new to chess might not know too well.

I mean, the idea of piece value is so well known that many players are reluctant to give up a rook for a knight or a knight for two pawns whatever.

I think that insight comes in stages. New players who only know the rules will happily trade their queen or rook for a pawn. After that, they get familiar with piece value. Now they will never ever make that 'forcing a checkmate'-trade if their piece is valued higher. That rook is worth more than a knight, so forget about the checkmate the next move, I'm not going to make a bad 'trade'. After that you get the sacrifice for nothing in return because sacrifices are beautifull. And after that, the understanding comes that a piece alone is worth nothing. It's the position that makes a piece worth something. I guess that is where I am at, so I don't know what the next step is yet :)

I will have to reflect on my original statement once I play enough games to become a Class A or above player.

Now in my late neophyte stage I am starting to understand this game is not about consuming all of your enemy's pieces, but instead selecting the positions that result in the fastest checkmate. I still hold true to my own merit that assigning relative values is all relative to your position and castling effects mirrored piece values enabling a slight edge towards a checkmate. 

I've read that wikipedia article prior to making this post. It makes no mention how castling effects relative value of you or your opponent. Reason why I feel it is important is because I've recently installed Houdini 4 engine which to date is the strongest ELO player and by that logic has the most reliable standard of winning. I've tested 10 games out of 10 and in all game scenarios the engine always decides to castle kingside instead of queenside irrespective of color, so perhaps it has decided this action is the most favorable for a checkmate advantage.

You can't make that conclusion on 10 games. It depends on the position. I am certain there are positions where houdini favours queenside castle. Why? The rook might just give a check, a pin, etc. I am not going to discard your idea as foolish, but 10 games with probably the same kind of opening isn't proof at all. Do 10.000 games with different openings. After that we can talk.

I don't have the processing power or the time to do so. If anyone has access to a large database of Houdini 4 games someone should post the kingside to queenside castle ratio. Although I would have to agree with you that 10 games is a rather small sample to be of use I think it holds some merit.

Castling (and the direction thereof) is only relevant in how it affects the position. The side you castle on only affects the initial value of the bishops - the king only has to move one square along the back rank to reverse the value of the bishops that you attempted to describe in your initial post.

From my understanding the 3 pawn shield in front of the King and a rook companion is most optimal until threatened or forced to move. Why would you compromise this placement or need a move in advance to neutrilize the threat if you can do it from the get go?

I've been told that the king-side bishop is to be valued higher most of the time.

The reason is not something arbitrary as the backrank mate, though.

The reason is: It aims at the color of the square where the opponent king resides and will reside after castling.

This means it often can pin a piece, be used for a discovered attack-check or force a tempo.

In general the bishop with the same color as the enemy-king is better. So at least at the beginning of the game the bishop that starts at the same color as the enemy-king simply is a little better.

I agree with Xilmi. If you are playing white, the light-squared bishop directly aims at the weakest point in Black's camp, f7. 

And if Black castled kingside and moved the pawn to h6, and the light-squared bishop is on the diagonal towards the king, the f7-pawn is pinned, so a piece can make use of the g6-square. Notice that the h-pawn is not around and the f-pawn is impotent.

So yes, you can say that the value of the kingside bishop is a little bit higher, but this is not that significant.