Reavaluation of piece values

ue to the changed board size, some pieces have increased in value, while others have dipped in value.

The pawn has gained increased power due to being able to promote in the middle of the board, in stead of the typically well defended back row. The pawn and the promoted queen should still be valued at one point, the other pieces should adjust to allow that.

The knight, in contrast, has dipped in strength. It retains it's defensive capabilities, but pales in comparison to the bishop. I believe it should be considered to be worth two points.

The bishop has an increase in strength. It - unlike the rook- can easily target two opponents at once. It's greater maneuverability should increase it's value to four points, it's only weakness being it's access to only half the squares on the board. 

The rook has not increased it's value, as it's lack of maneuverability negates it's increased range. It should also be valued at four points, adjusting from the usual five points due to the increased power of the pawn.

The queen has almost doubled in strength. It has the abilities of the bishop and room but with none of the weaknesses. I believe it should be valued anywhere between ten and twelve points.

Hmm. Interesting. When I first played 4 player I was thinking that instead of the bishop being 5 it should be 4, and the rook should stay at 5.

@HorusTheThird you are the only one so far I've seen to like the idea of a queen valued the same as a pawn. Most people who have expressed their opinion think it makes no sense at all!

The rook does stay at five. (technically it increases to six, a reasonable increase) It's the value of the pawn that changes. 

The value of the promoted queen must, by definition, be based not on its value as a piece to the player that owns it, but due to some algorithm whereas they don't wish one player to create a queen just in order for another player to eat it and get the nine points.

I am hoping it will change as the game becomes more mature, with more serious players playing it, matches, recorded games, and the like.

@VAOhlman you mean that a player would voluntary promote pawns to queens to give more points to one of his opponents? Can you think of a scenario where such an action would be beneficiary for himself?

easily Skeftomilos...

a player needs 9 points to get second, he asks the "leader" for 9 points in order to give him support against a remaining third player (maybe thinking he has no chanches for first place)

A rook is pretty powerful in the middle of the board, it can attack everyone.  It just takes longer to develop than a bishop.

@veni-vidi-vici3 the scenario you describe doesn't need high-valued promoted queens. The leader could buy the third player's support right now, by donating him his original queen. Assuming he has already three queens, two of them from promotions, he could give away his high-valued queen and keep the two low-valued for himself.

But this scenario has never happened in practice, never reported at least, although it could theoretically happen. Meanwhile we are stuck with the insanity of having the highest mobility pieces giving the lowest amount of points...

That insanity introduces a wacky strategic angle to the game.  I'm not convinced it's bad.

@MGleason there is plenty of room for wacky variants, but the mainstream game should be logical. Newcomers should not be surprised by the insanity of the rules, but by the insanity of the game play.

Not sure this will make sense but as I have played this game and think of it from a what would I take for what points value (based on strength of piece that I use). I would leave pawns a 1, knights at 3, rooks at 5 and move bishops to 6, queens at 9 (* would be find if they were 10-12 as well *double the bishops argument could be made). As for promoted queens I am ok with 1 point but would also be good with upping the value on them from anywhere from 3 - 6 points with the thought that a promoted queen gets a nice boost when trading for a bishop or rook and if they were 5-6 points that thought process would be a bit more painful. That said since I think its been working pretty well already I would vote for them to be valued at 3 points to test see if it really makes any difference. 

*ON a parallel note: If the promoted queens were worth 9 points I wonder if that would make people think twice about the number of queens they get with the knowledge that when they lose there promoted queen they are losing a lot of points and probably the game?? (*just pondering ) 

Yeah, if promoted pawns get the full value of the queen, you'd be hesitant to promote your pawns as every pawn you promote is additional potential points for your opponents.

Promoted pawns are getting the full mobility of a queen. Why not get the full value also? If value isn't related to mobility, then what are we talking about? Just throw a dice and give each piece the value of the dice.

The value of promoted queen should stay at 1 at least during the next round. More often than not, the promoted queen is taken right away. Therefore giving it higher value will deter players from promoting. Nevertheless its value could be increasing gradually each round by 1 to the set maximum. 

Sometimes you can get away with the promoted queen, especially at the start of the game, because no one wants to take the hit for others. But I think that is part of the game and it should stay that way.

Also part of the game would change, now you are trying to stop each pawn before the promotion (if you dont have your pawn there), but after the increase you would wait to take it for more points.

@489489 I made a similar suggestion about newborn promoted queens some time ago:
Suggestion: Promoted queens are worth 1 point, as long as they stay in the promotion square

That might be even better

Why bishops 6??

To me Bishops are clearly more valuable then Rooks and they are not even in this version of chess. The second most powerful piece on the board behind the queen. 

The only argument I have seen made that holds water is that in the late game the rooks really do pull there weight. But by then there typically are more queen's so they take the place of knights in defense more often then not. 

No. But then I've seen a lot of players do things which were not a benefit to themsleves.
But what I was merely trying to do is figure out why some queens were worth nine, and others worth one, when their 'value' to the player is the same.