[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 2024.
Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 2024.
I guess I would have to note here that the computer studies don't in fact give a (e.g. pawn value) bonus for adding a N to a Q (even though the latter has a B component) since the value given by such studies for the amazon is 12 Pawns as I recall, i.e. not even any sort of bonus in value whatsoever gained for whatever synergy there is between the N & Q move capabilities.
One thing that impresses me about an archbishop (or a chancellor) is that, on a fairly central square, within a 2 square radius the piece controls 16 squares, the same as a queen, and with the archbishop these are done in 4 nice chunks of 4 squares (though in a corner square this piece really suffers due to the limited scope of both minor piece components). On the other hand, an amazon controls all of these squares, i.e. the full 24, which allows it to deliver mate unaided on an empty board, though it's harder to compare abstractly with the effects of 2 seperate pieces (a N and a Q).
Aside from these particular examples, I have some lingering doubts about the methodology of computer studies (that's aside from the usual caveats, e.g. of what other pieces are on the board, and board size), namely margin of error, and whether top programs (as opposed to even average ones) should be used for play vs. each other in the studies (analogous to thinking better human players produce games with better use of the pieces being tested), though I do recall you'd had a way to dismiss the latter doubt of mine.
Regarding the doubts I have about margin of error in these studies, one is whether there should be a doubling of it (there seems to be an assumption that the 'superior' side's piece(s) will always win a larger percentage of the games in a study; however 'in theory' I think it might be possible for some study results to show the 'weaker' side's piece winning a higher percentage of the games in that particular study). The other doubt I have is whether margin of error somehow should be bigger when testing pieces of bigger value, i.e. the margin of error for an archbishop's value perhaps ought to be bigger than the margin of error for a bishop's value, in comparing these two pieces to other ones. Thus the margin of error associated with an amazon in a study might be relatively huge, perhaps. Nevertheless, my concerns over margin of error are less than my concern with not using top playing programs for such studies.