asymmetry: [2 guards vs. 1 bishop and 1 knight]
guards win (score) = 101/200 = 50.5%
Conclusion (on a 10x8 board, with other FIDE chess pieces):
A guard's value is:
1) equal to a bishop.
2) slightly superior to a knight.
yet on an 8x8 board H.G.M. found that two bishops 'usually crush' two guards, and also found that on a 10x8 board a bishop is worth 0.5 more than a knight. How does one reconcile V.R.'s conclusion with H.G.M.'s findings that I mentioned (noting also that H.G.M. gives a certain point value bonus for having the bishop pair in chess)?
There's something I don't quite get. Earlier V.R. wrote:
...
An Overall Summary of only games where guards have this "optimal" assigned value (300, 350, or 375):
asymmetry: [2 guards vs. 2 bishops]
guards win (score) = 40/80 = 50.0%
asymmetry: [2 guards vs. 2 knights]
guards win (score) = 46/80 = 57.5%
asymmetry: [2 guards vs. 1 bishop and 1 knight]
guards win (score) = 101/200 = 50.5%
Conclusion (on a 10x8 board, with other FIDE chess pieces):
A guard's value is:
1) equal to a bishop.
2) slightly superior to a knight.
yet on an 8x8 board H.G.M. found that two bishops 'usually crush' two guards, and also found that on a 10x8 board a bishop is worth 0.5 more than a knight. How does one reconcile V.R.'s conclusion with H.G.M.'s findings that I mentioned (noting also that H.G.M. gives a certain point value bonus for having the bishop pair in chess)?