H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2020 04:10 AM EDT:
My best guess is that the given piece values totally suck. The hoppers seem hugely over-estimated. Even in the opening phase of Xiangqi a Cannon is only marginally better than a Horse, while the Horse is only worth half a Knight in a FIDE context. The Cardinal seems hugely undrestimated; on 8x8 it is only about a quarter pawn weaker than a Marshall, and I would not be surprised if it is actually stronger than one in this game, as it is very adept in demolishing Pawn chains, and there are a lot of Pawns here.
I did do some piece-value measurements on a 12x12 board lately, but the results were a bit anomalous. It seemed the difference between a Rook on one hand, and a Bishop or Knight on the other could not be compensated with any reasonable number of pawns; the Rook always won, and giving the opponent one more extra Pawn did not change the average result. The problem seemed to be that too many Pawns remain on such a large board, and their path to promotion is long. And Pawns cannot self-defend against a Rook while a Bishop or Knight can never catch a passer, and Bishops often not even a blocked Pawn. So what happens is that the Rook just eats away all opponent Pawns, the opponent minor being tied up by preventing advance of a passer. And then it starts to push his own passers protected by the Rook, so that in the end the only way to prevent promotion is sac the minor. After which the Rook player promotes his other passers, or just checkmates with the Rook.
My best guess is that the given piece values totally suck. The hoppers seem hugely over-estimated. Even in the opening phase of Xiangqi a Cannon is only marginally better than a Horse, while the Horse is only worth half a Knight in a FIDE context. The Cardinal seems hugely undrestimated; on 8x8 it is only about a quarter pawn weaker than a Marshall, and I would not be surprised if it is actually stronger than one in this game, as it is very adept in demolishing Pawn chains, and there are a lot of Pawns here.
I did do some piece-value measurements on a 12x12 board lately, but the results were a bit anomalous. It seemed the difference between a Rook on one hand, and a Bishop or Knight on the other could not be compensated with any reasonable number of pawns; the Rook always won, and giving the opponent one more extra Pawn did not change the average result. The problem seemed to be that too many Pawns remain on such a large board, and their path to promotion is long. And Pawns cannot self-defend against a Rook while a Bishop or Knight can never catch a passer, and Bishops often not even a blocked Pawn. So what happens is that the Rook just eats away all opponent Pawns, the opponent minor being tied up by preventing advance of a passer. And then it starts to push his own passers protected by the Rook, so that in the end the only way to prevent promotion is sac the minor. After which the Rook player promotes his other passers, or just checkmates with the Rook.