Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Here's a 2001 list I missed on CVP, with 200 8x8 board piece values suggested by Zog (many of the values are clearly too low, e.g. for certain chess pieces, when using chess pawn = approx. 1888); included are the commoner (aka mann), and a [modern] elephant by another name (if I'm reading the notation right), the mann given a value of about 3.4 pawns when I worked out the ratio. The [modern] elephant (aka ferfil!?) relates in value to a knight here by having a slightly higher value than it, which may be slightly surprising. Note that a knight is given a value of about 2.7 pawns (that is, about 0.055 pawns less than a ferfil), i.e. it's thought worth under 3 pawns(!), while a bishop is given a value of about 3.14 pawns:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/whos-who-on-8x8.html

I've added the checkmating potential note to this page.

I wanted to call out that the "vocabulary" section here seems to disagree with our current definition of adjacent in the glossary, when referring to hexagonal variants.  I think such sections in the Piececlopedia should generally be replaced to a link to the glossary, but we should consider whether we like the glossary definition of "adjacent" for hexagonal boards.

By the glossary, do you mean the old one or the new version I've been working on? The definition here, which I wrote, is in line with the first two definitions I wrote for the new version. The new one differs by also covering what adjacent means for 3D spaces.

https://www.chessvariants.com/terms/#adjacent

I've added the checkmating potential note to this page.

Nice! But perhaps you should also mention that the man loses this mating potential on boards of size 15x15 or larger. Also note that the symbol used for Man in the WinBoard/XBoard GUI is

@Fergus, sorry, I looked up the recent thread but went to the old glossary anyway.  The newer one is more general and matches the use here, but I'd still suggest to remove the Vocabulary sections of the Piececlopedia in favor of links to the glossary.

@H.G., thanks, I'll add the board size comment later today.  (I just noticed you already brought up this complication almost a year and a half ago!)  Can the checkmating applet extend to accept a board size (as a URI query parameter)?  Is 14x14 or 15x15 too large to generate the endgame table in an online setting?

Is 14x14 or 15x15 too large to generate the endgame table in an online setting?

I am not sure how far this can be pushed. It probably depends on the computers people use. But some people might want to try it on a phone... I suppose we would like it to work for almost everyone.

The problem is that the required amount of memory increases very aggressively with board size. With 3 pieces on an NxN board you have N^6 possible positions. So going from N=8 to N=16 requires 64 times as much memory. The time it takes would be proportional to size. For 3 pieces even 16x16 only requires 16MB, which by today's standards is small. So I suppose that can be done, and based on how long it takes now, it would then take some 10 sec to generate the table. I will have a look at it.