Oh, I quite like that! *furiously jots it down*
I'll admit I was approaching it from a more arbitrary 'points = vale' angle. Looking at my notes again, I see why I was doing that (to simplify some of the complexity in interactions).
While I agree that a piece's value in context is wildy variable, I also think from a purely utilitatrian perspective (subtracting any other factors) that a bishop or rook, for instance, are more 'useful' than a pawn--one of the minor objectives, after all, is the push to upgrade one's pawn if possible.
| Which I think speaks to Greg Karber's opinion above: The king's importance creates the central goal and drama of the game |
You know, that's an interesting point. I was aware of this but hadnt given it much thought! Makes me wonder if swapping out the King for another piece (pawns or rooks) would mix things up in a good way or not. Perhaps considering the game lost if all of those units are captured.
Might make for an interesting puzzle scenario, hmm.