From: Kevin Loughran AOL COM> Date: 15 nov 2002 Subject: Re: The value of pieces to Shogi --part1_183.11e2085e.2b06187c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a very interesting question. In my opinion, the value of the peices in Shogi are more dynamic than in Western Chess. For example, a Knight or a Bishop can generally be considered to be worth approximately 3 pawns. Depending upon positional considerations this value can vary dramatically (ergo, if your Knight is in a position to deliver a smothered mate it's worth the game!) however, this possibility is limited by the deliverable moves in any given position. The possible moves in Western Chess are limited by the fact that pieces cannot be re-entered into play except through pawn promotion and Shogi pieces (and pawns!) can be dropped into play on any legal square. Moreover, the pawn structure in Chess can never be restored. Once a pawn has been moved, it can never be returned to it's original position. This means that the power of Chess pieces is therefore limited by the pawn moves previously made and therefore is more 'Static". The pawn position (the 'battlefield' so to speak) in Chess is irrecoverable and therefore the power of any piece is determinable by the opposing pawn structures. In Shogi, the pawn structure can be restored and the power of the pieces not so easily evaluated. What I mean by this is simply that the ability of Shogi pieces to drop negates the standard whereby Chess pieces can be rated in relative worth (ie, available moves versus pawn structure) and cannot be assertained by a simple Bishop equals three pawns equation. Many Joseki offer the opportunity to mate against huge material imbalances and this indicates that other criteria are the determing factors in deciding relative value. I believe that weak versus strong square considerations might offer the best idea for Western style analysis, but that may be overly simplistic. In any case, this is the kind of question I find most appealing and I hope that this may stimulate both debate and deliberation. Kevin Loughran --part1_183.11e2085e.2b06187c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit       This is a very interesting question. In my opinion, the value of the
peices in Shogi are more dynamic than in Western Chess. For example,
a Knight or a Bishop can generally be considered to be worth approximately
3 pawns. Depending upon positional considerations this value can vary
dramatically (ergo, if your Knight is in a position to deliver a smothered
mate it's worth the game!) however, this possibility is limited by the deliverable
moves in any given position. The possible moves in Western Chess
are limited by the fact that pieces cannot be re-entered into play except
through pawn promotion and Shogi pieces (and pawns!) can be dropped
into play on any legal square.
      Moreover, the pawn structure in Chess can never be restored. Once
a pawn has been moved, it can never be returned to it's original position.
This means that the power of Chess pieces is therefore limited by the pawn
moves previously made and therefore is more 'Static".
      The pawn position (the 'battlefield' so to speak) in Chess is irrecoverable
and therefore the power of any piece is determinable by the opposing pawn
structures. In Shogi, the pawn structure can be restored and the power of
the pieces not so easily evaluated.
      What I mean by this is simply that the ability of Shogi pieces to drop
negates the standard whereby Chess pieces can be rated in relative worth
(ie, available moves versus pawn structure) and cannot be assertained by
a simple Bishop equals three pawns equation.
      Many Joseki offer the opportunity to mate against huge material
imbalances and this indicates that other criteria are the determing factors
in deciding relative value.
      I believe that weak versus strong square considerations might offer the
best idea for Western style analysis, but that may be overly simplistic.
      In any case, this is the kind of question I find most appealing and I
hope that this may stimulate both debate and deliberation.
      Kevin Loughran

      --part1_183.11e2085e.2b06187c_boundary--