Author: Ed Trice
Date: 15:24:11 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hello Anthony >My guess is that an Archbishop is only slightly weaker a queen - say 8 : 9 or so. >A Chancellor might even be stronger than a queen in some situations (closed >positions). > The Archbishop has the greatest "utility" in the early stages of the game where there are many pawns present. The pawns basically exhaust flight squares for the king, which enhance its solo-checkmating ability. The Chancellor starts to become effective in the middlegame, so its value is still less than that of a Queen. The Rook and Knight components do not cooperate well, and Chancellor is functionally a Rook for most of the game. The Queen is still the deadliest piece, but what changes during the course of play is the exchange value for it. For example, earlier in the game, a Chancellor + 1 pawn > Queen, so you would give up your Queen for a Q plus a pawn you pick up in a tactical volley. Later on, this might not be the case. Archbishop + 1 Pawn for Chancellor is another, as is Archibishop + 2 Pawns for a Queen. All theoretical, all still in need of testing.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.