Enter Your Reply The Comment You're Replying To Roberto Lavieri wrote on Thu, Apr 1, 2004 01:14 AM UTC:I don´t agree that potential advantage in the exchange comes ever from significant differences in piece values, and good examples comes from positional games like Xian-Qi or Hexetera/Etcetera. In Hexetera, my subjective estimation of values are, fixing Pawn in 1: Man 1.5, Flyer-Elephant 2.5, Guardian 4, Rook 5.5; but in this game the usual exchanges for advantage are strictly positional, and many times (really many times)this kind of exchange is performed exchanging a major piece for the capture a piece of less value, i.e., conceeding material. In this game there is not permissed to change pieces of the same type, making this game almost estrictly positional, and sacrifices are not only usual, but many times necessary for a definition, finishing a game in around 40 moves. In Xiang-Qi, material advantage is not as important as positional advantage, and other of my games, Deneb, is clearly a very positional game, being that all the major pieces have approximately the same medium value, around a little less than a FIDE-Rook, but the extinction rules induce games that lasts in average 25-35 moves. It is difficult establish good measures for positional games in which material advantages are not determinant. I´ll be back with other games in which good measures are not easy to stablish properly. Edit Form You may not post a new comment, because ItemID Game Design does not match any item.