Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 20:39:45 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2004 at 18:24:11, Ed Trice wrote: >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. I guess that all makes sense. Knights get weaker in the ending. Still, just off hand I would put the archbishop just as strong as the chancellor. It doesn't have the "confined to the light squares" problems. Maybe a fair estimate is 8 pawns for each during the middle game and 7 pawns for each during the endgame. It would be interesting to run a few hundred games with your prog and see how the different material values do. anthony
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.