I was thinking that the 1/2 ratio of power of movement vs power of capture is equal to the 1/2 ratio of enemy pieces vs empty squares. Is that a coincidence? If not the power of movement should increase in importance and I don't think that is true.
I think captures are the important thing in the game as captures could change the material balance. So, I was thinking rather than captures and movement to think in terms of captures and future captures (i.e. captures in 2 moves, captures in 3 moves, etc.). As the board empties capturing in two moves increases via the increased power of movement and decreases via decreased number of targets so it seems to be a better model, giving the fact that for example in my Enep knightwas are fairly constant through the game. This line of thinking is reasonable I think for pieces like pao and vao in Eurasian chess. There is a catch with those specific pieces as the power of capture is related to the number of pieces, too.
HG,
I was thinking that the 1/2 ratio of power of movement vs power of capture is equal to the 1/2 ratio of enemy pieces vs empty squares. Is that a coincidence? If not the power of movement should increase in importance and I don't think that is true.
I think captures are the important thing in the game as captures could change the material balance. So, I was thinking rather than captures and movement to think in terms of captures and future captures (i.e. captures in 2 moves, captures in 3 moves, etc.). As the board empties capturing in two moves increases via the increased power of movement and decreases via decreased number of targets so it seems to be a better model, giving the fact that for example in my Enep knightwas are fairly constant through the game. This line of thinking is reasonable I think for pieces like pao and vao in Eurasian chess. There is a catch with those specific pieces as the power of capture is related to the number of pieces, too.