Single Comment

Right, they are three very close. Orthodox chessists do not dwell on relatively trifling 0.05, 0.10, 0.20 differences say in FRC line-ups between Knight and Bishop or minor rules changes affecting stalemate or whatever, do they? Good moves are more important the players, and for designers good piece-types and rules that jibe and reinforce, not exact valuation. (For instance, Winther's dozens of bi-furcators he reports as ''about 3.0'' or ''estimated at 4.0,'' close enough for initial purpose.) Yet specifically here, the disadvantage of forced colourswitching is in view of other pieces' like Bishops being colourbound. Gazelle cannot capitalize on positional advantage against such colourbounders generally speaking. Bison and Gnu can elect to switch or not, and Gazelle cannot.  It takes play of Bison to internalize the power of long-range forks both Gnu and Gazelle have not the same ability. 'Bison > Gnu > Gazelle' is pretty clear on our intermediate boards, meaning over 72, notwithstanding Zillions' formula. Only three steps of Bison, either Camel or Zebra, lose nothing in versatility.  More so striking would be Bison over the others on greater than 100 squares. Anyone playing Omega Chess on 100(104) for example knows how lost get both Wizard, whose reach is 3 only half the arrival squares, and Champion to the line pieces. However, the over-100-squares set should result in Gazelle eventually overtaking Gnu for that very range-advantage of Zebra ''farther out'' than Camel. Over-all, we are talking most board sizes/piece mixes within best common sense, 80-120 squares, of values like 6.2/6.1/6.0 the three bi-compounds near equal. [On a Jupiter 16x16 or even possibly a Typhoon 12x12 start about Bison 7, Gazelle 6, Gnu 5 and see what happens.]