Single Comment

Sam and Dan,

Thank you both for the time that you have spent looking into this and
typing in your findings.  I appreciate it, and, with research, it will
lead to a stronger program.

It is true that development by itself doesn't guarantee anything. 
However, computer chess programs consider as many moves as they have time
to, and each sequence of moves leads to a positon.  The computer must then
evaluate that position (or, if pieces are still hanging, it plays out
winning captures before it evaluates,) but eventually a position must be
quantified with a number - the more positive the number, the better the
position for white, the more negative, the better for black.  Experience
can tell a human player a lot about what is good and what is bad, but
trying to program in too many specific scenarios makes a program worse,
because it takes too much CPU time to evaluate, and the more CPU time you
spend on evaluation, the less moves you can consider.

Lots of things can help ChessV.  Obviously, a good opening book would
help.  I am working on an opening book for Janus Chess, but it takes time.
 Also, evaluation of position gives pieces a bonus or penalty based on the
square it occupies (a piece-square-table.)  Such tables can be different
for each type of piece, and they can be different in the opening vs.
midgame vs. endgame.  Clearly the piece-square-tables for Janus Chess (and
all other 10x8 variants for that matter) could be improved.  I'll look
into the current tables, and, based on the game Dan has posted, I'll try
some experimentation.  Finally, I think that there is probably a bug
buried somewhere deep in the move-search functions that is proving very
difficult to isolate ...

Thanks again to you both.  I'll study what you have posted and keep you
posted!