Enter Your Reply

The Comment You're Replying To

Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Apr 21, 2008 09:13 PM UTC:

Gentlemen, I'd like to put an oar into these murky waters. Let me say that, as a designer, I am very interested in piece values, and ways to derive them. I have had some thoughts and previous conversations on the subject, and my poor thoughts have led me to ask questions and make the odd observation on piece values, and I am truly interested in this topic, but...

First, this is a page on a particular Capa variant. As such, and especially given the author's inclusion of a piece value chart and discussion, it is a fine place to argue piece values. It is not, however, a good place to stage ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with your position. [As an editor, I frown upon this practice... hint, hint!] But I am also a designer, and would like to ask some questions, so I ask you to play nice, and not drive people away with flame.

Second, I would like you to consider the piece values of pieces similar to Capa pieces, but not quite them. I offer you my games only, because other people have privately expressed to me their strong desire not to get dragged into arguments. As I respect their wishes, we are stuck with my games, and my pieces, for now. Others may suggest other pieces.

The games are:
Great Shatranj [10x8]
Grand Shatranj [10x10]
Atlantean Barroom Shatranj [10x10]
Lemurian Shatranj [8x8]
Chieftain Chess [12x16]

Great Shatranj in particular is a shortrange version of Capa Chess, with no piece moving more than 2 squares and most pieces having a leaping ability. This should not be too difficult, I would hope, as all the pieces are exact analogs of the Capablanca pieces.
Grand Shatranj is similarly a shortrange version of Freeling's Grand Chess, using a somewhat more powerful piece set than Great Shatranj, and Atlantean Barroom is a twisted version of Grand. No piece moves more than 4 squares in either game, and if 10x10 is too big for any reason, I'd be happy to see values for 10x8.
Lemurian is just 8x8, and thus 'easy', or at least easier, to figure piece values for, I would imagine. It is, in a very real way, a 'cut-down' version of Atlantean Barroom, with even piece moves being literally cut in half, to produce inclusive compound pieces that leap and move up to 3 squares, but may change directions.
This takes us to Chieftain, a rather large game at 12x16, but with only 5 kinds of pieces, and no piece moves over 3 squares/turn. It also replaces pawns with non-promoting guards, simplifying that part of the evaluation. It does play with the role of kings and movement rules, though.

Can you give me piece values for any of the pieces in these games, in a reasonable amount of time: say a week to a month? If this is pushing it, how much time is reasonable?

There are many other pieces and kinds of pieces that could be used, but these must suffice to make my arguments, unless someone else wishes to throw their piece[s] into the ring.

I would particularly like to hear your values for the minister and high priestess for the three games they're in, and how it changes relative to the other pieces in the games.

The shortrange Capa piece pair make interesting test pieces. Is their value constant or does it change over the three games? What about the relative values of the other pieces - can they be made 'absolute' over the 3 games, or do their values change from game to game, by how much, and why?

For those who design variants, these are fundamental questions I'm asking. Is there a system, or combination of systems, that can predict a piece's value reasonably accurately? And how close is 'reasonable'?

I am very interested in these questions, and I know from personal communications that others are also interested, for their own games and pieces. Some would ask these questions if they weren't afraid of being insulted.

I would like to leave Mr Aberg's page and any sense of animosity and start a piece value topic. It might be nice if the participants edited their previous remarks appropriately. Those who are not members may email me for any changes they may wish.

Joe Joyce

Edit Form

Comment on the page Aberg variation of Capablanca's Chess

Name or UserID: Password: if signing in with UserIDRating: Comment or question:
Format:

Conduct Guidelines

This is a Chess variants website, not a general forum.: Please limit your comments to Chess variants or the operation of this site.
Keep this website a safe space for Chess variant hobbyists of all stripes.: Because we want people to feel comfortable here no matter what their political or religious beliefs might be, we ask you to avoid discussing politics, religion, or other controversial subjects here. No matter how passionately you feel about any of these subjects, just take it someplace else.
Avoid Inflammatory Comments: If you are feeling anger, keep it to yourself until you calm down. Avoid insulting, blaming, or attacking someone you are angry with. Focus criticisms on ideas rather than people, and understand that criticisms of your ideas are not personal attacks and do not justify an inflammatory response.

Quick Markdown Guide

By default, new comments may be entered as Markdown, simple markup syntax designed to be readable and not look like markup. Comments stored as Markdown will be converted to HTML by Parsedown before displaying them. This follows the Github Flavored Markdown Spec with support for Markdown Extra. For a good overview of Markdown in general, check out the Markdown Guide. Here is a quick comparison of some commonly used Markdown with the rendered result:

# Top level header: `<H1>`

> Block quote 
>
> Second paragraph in block quote

First Paragraph of response. *Italics*, **bold**, and ***bold italics***.

Second Paragraph after blank line. Here is some <U>HTML code</U> mixed in with the Markdown, and here is the same `<U>HTML code</U>` enclosed by backticks.

## Secondary Header: `<H2>`

* Unordered list item
* Second unordered list item
+ New unordered list
    * Nested list item
- An URL by itself:
    + https://www.chessvariants.com
- A text link:
    - [The Chess Variant Pages](https://www.chessvariants.com)

### Third Level header `<H3>`
	
1. An ordered list item.
1. A second ordered list item with the same number.
2. A third ordered list item.

~~~
Here is some preformatted text.
  This line begins with some indentation.
    This begins with even more indentation.
And this line has no indentation.
~~~

![Alt text for a graphic image](/graphics.dir/cvp-logo-draft8.png)

A definition list
: A list of terms, each with one or more definitions following it.
: An HTML construct using the tags `<DL>`, `<DT>` and `<DD>`.

A term
: Its definition after a colon.
: A second definition.
: A third definition.

Another term following a blank line
: The definition of that term.

Top level header: `<H1>`

Block quote

Second paragraph in block quote

First Paragraph of response. Italics, bold, and bold italics.

Second Paragraph after blank line. Here is some HTML code mixed in with the Markdown, and here is the same <U>HTML code</U> enclosed by backticks.

Secondary Header: `<H2>`

Unordered list item
Second unordered list item

New unordered list
- Nested list item

An URL by itself:
- https://www.chessvariants.com
A text link:
- The Chess Variant Pages

Third Level header `<H3>`

An ordered list item.
A second ordered list item with the same number.
A third ordered list item.

Here is some preformatted text.
  This line begins with some indentation.
    This begins with even more indentation.
And this line has no indentation.

A definition list: A list of terms, each with one or more definitions following it.; An HTML construct using the tags <DL>, <DT> and <DD>.
A term: Its definition after a colon.; A second definition.; A third definition.
Another term following a blank line: The definition of that term.

Comments

Aberg variation of Capablanca's Chess. Different setup and castling rules. (10x8, Cells: 80)

💡📝Hans Aberg wrote on Sat, May 3, 2008 04:43 PM UTC:

H.G.Muller:
| But the point is that this does not alter the piece values.

Right, though that might be just a preferred way to structure theory because it suits human thinking. Essentially, define contexts, and attach values to them. First define piece values in nutralk settings. Then observe that the bishop pair gets an added value. Then try to figure out values for good and poor bishops. And so on. By contrast, computers tend to be very poor at handling such contexts, so other methods might be suitable for programs.

Derek Nalls wrote on Sat, May 3, 2008 03:26 PM UTC:

Muller:

You have my best regards toward your worthwhile effort to publish your
empirical, statistical method for obtaining the material values of pieces
in the ICGA Journal.  My assessment is that it will surely be a much
better paper than the junk [name removed] published in the same journal
regarding piece values.

[The above has been edited to remove a name and/or site reference. It is
the policy of cv.org to avoid mention of that particular name and site to
remove any threat of lawsuits. Sorry to have to do that, but we must
protect ourselves. -D. Howe]

H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, May 3, 2008 03:22 PM UTC:

Sure, this is what people do and have done for ages. It is well known that the advantage of having the move is worth 1/6 of a Pawn, (corresponding in normal Chess to a white score of 53-54%) and that, by inference, wasting a full move is equivalent to 1/3 of a Pawn.

But the point is that this does not alter the piece values. It just adds to them, like every positional advantage adds to them. In my test the advantage of having the lead move is neutralized by playing every position both with white to move and black to move.

💡📝Hans Aberg wrote on Sat, May 3, 2008 11:50 AM UTC:

H.G.Muller:
| As piece values are only useful as strategic guidelines for quiet
| positions, they cannot be sensitive to who has the move.

At the beginning of the game, white is thought to have a slight advantage, and the first task of black will be attempting to neutralize that. And it might be possible set a picee value to that positional advantage, just as when reasoning in terms of getting positional compensation for a sacrifice. Somewhat less han a pawn, perhaps. If one knows about the black/white winning statistics, one might be able to set a value on it that way. It may not be usable for a computer program as it does not change sides, but only computes the relative values of moves.

H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, May 3, 2008 10:34 AM UTC:

As piece values are only useful as strategic guidelines for quiet positions, they cannot be sensitive to who has the move. A position where it matters who has the move is by definition nont quiet, as one ply later that characteristic will have essentially changed. So at the level of piece-value strategies, Chess is a perfectly symmetric game.

Number of ratings: 1, Average rating: Good, Number of comments: 124

Enter Your Reply

Top level header: <H1>

Secondary Header: <H2>

Third Level header <H3>

Top level header: `<H1>`

Secondary Header: `<H2>`

Third Level header `<H3>`