Kevin Pacey wrote on Fri, Jul 31, 2020 02:32 AM UTC:
Okay, thanks for the winning stats Dave!
The figures P=1, B=3, N=4, R=5, Q=9 for Glinski's were ones I saw that came on a paper inside a tube for Glinski's, when I used to own a set. It also had a picture of several tables of players playing Glinski's (on physical boards). I discussed the values a bit in an old email to Tim O'Lena, as I tend to agree with them - they also avoid situations where a Q plus piece is worth less than 2 Rs, which seems to make sense.
These days I'm an aging Canadian national chess master (title, no longer rating), with only a Candidate Master FIDE rating nowadays. I had 2400 Canadian ratings briefly about 10 years ago, and a provisional USCF rating of 2400+ back in 1981 after a 9 round Pan Am college team event in NYC - for some reason a team mate registered me as Kev Pacey, perhaps to try to be kind in case I were to play in USCF events later, but I would have thought an organizer there would put 2 and 2 together in that case.
Okay, thanks for the winning stats Dave!
The figures P=1, B=3, N=4, R=5, Q=9 for Glinski's were ones I saw that came on a paper inside a tube for Glinski's, when I used to own a set. It also had a picture of several tables of players playing Glinski's (on physical boards). I discussed the values a bit in an old email to Tim O'Lena, as I tend to agree with them - they also avoid situations where a Q plus piece is worth less than 2 Rs, which seems to make sense.
These days I'm an aging Canadian national chess master (title, no longer rating), with only a Candidate Master FIDE rating nowadays. I had 2400 Canadian ratings briefly about 10 years ago, and a provisional USCF rating of 2400+ back in 1981 after a 9 round Pan Am college team event in NYC - for some reason a team mate registered me as Kev Pacey, perhaps to try to be kind in case I were to play in USCF events later, but I would have thought an organizer there would put 2 and 2 together in that case.