Single Comment

Thanks a lot, Jeremy, for analysis of highlights of the Falcon model of coherent piece development. Remarkable the co-equality of Knight and Bishop on 8x8! Yet it breaks down by 9x8 or 8x9 where B>N, and smaller would be N>B. So, probably it is coincidental (like Sun-Earth-Moon 400 factor?). Competing philosophy is expressed by Larry Smith 22.March.04 under 'Game Design' thread: 'If a game was populated with pieces of near equal value, the advantage of exchange might not be significant. But if the pieces were of various degrees of value, enough to clearly differentiate them, exchanges would hold the potential of an advantage. Then a player can make sacrifices to obtain positional advantage.'  There we developed formula M = 3.5Zt/(P(1-G)), where P = Power Density(Betza), G = Smith's Exchange Gradient[quantified by myself], t = piece-type density, and Z = Board Size in number of squares, used to calculate M, game length(number of moves expected average).  [Mike Nelson named what Betza defined 'Power Density']