Single Comment

Looking only at the best-case mobility of a piece can be hugely misleading, especially when that best case is highly dependent on the exact positions of other pieces.  My piece threatens every square on the board, instantly and automatically winning the game...provided that I have 8 pawns all positioned on my seventh rank.  Clearly it is stronger than your entire army!

You suggest that CG is very good behind a pawn--but as soon as that pawn moves one space forward, the CG is stranded with no moves at all!  It cannot even follow the pawn up to regain its lost mobility.  A G behind a pawn can only move to the space directly in front of the pawn, but at least it retains that ability as the pawn advances, and can threaten any piece that tries to stand in the pawn's way.

You talk about imagining substituting a G or CG for a FIDE piece as if it were some great revelation, but despite your protestations, merely imagining this scenario for a few moments does not magically allow you to accurately determine a piece's value.  At least, it does not allow ME to do so, and clearly it does not allow you to produce predictions that are consistent with any accepted method of estimation, nor am I aware of any instances so far in which your unorthodox predictions have been proven true by empirical study.

The only actual evidence you have presented so far is an analysis of best-case mobility--which, at 19 squares, should (if it were meaningful) put its value at 1.35 Rooks, higher than either of the two different values you have already guessed!  As far as I can tell, your numbers are based on nothing but intuition, and your intuition isn't even consistent.

As for me, I'd happily take the Camel in preference to either of these pieces in most positions.

By the way, George, your posts would be much more readable if you used an occasional paragraph break.