The reason why the Capablanca big-board variants haven't caught on is
because the board alters the relation between pieces. There are now ten
pawn, a fact which affects the pawn value. The center of the board isn't
sharply defined anymore. The knight is worth a pawn less than a bishop. The
rook is now worth equally much as a bishop + knight. There is now plenty of
space on the board, so one is unlikely to achieve spatial advantage.
All this means that important strategical themes are lost, especially the
important relation between knight and bishop, and it's hardly possible to
sacrifice a rook for a knight anymore.
However, the Gustavian board retains all the relations of Fide chess. There
are only eight pawns, and the relation between knight and bishop is
retained. Possibly, the knight value increases slightly because of the
extra corner square, which makes it easier to maneuver with the knight. The
queen is probably somewhat more valuable since it can now invade the enemy
position via the extra corner square.
I hold that the 68-squared Gustavian board is much superior to the
90-squared board, although it also depends on the rules of the game. However, if
we simply add the chancellor and the archbishop to the Gustavian board, we
get a much better game than Capablanca Chess or Gothic Chess. This is
because all the fine nuances of Fide-chess are retained.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/gustaviii.htm
/M. Winther
