Most ratings I've seen put queens slightly higher value than a Chancellor--Capablanca Chess has Chancellor at 9, queen at 9.5. I've also seen computer simulations that put Queen at 9.75 and Chancellor at 8.5.
Maybe because Chancellor is a fairy piece. So it’s kinda hard to use it without wasting your time. You are all familiar with playing Queen rather than Chancellor Other than that idk
@@blakejhonshen2710 Queens (rook+bishop) and chancellors (rook+knight) are great in open positions due to amount of moves they can perform in these positions. However in an open position a bishop has a larger variety of moves than a knight so it will favor that. In a closed position a chancellor would theoretically be better, but it does not have the same outpost options that regular knights have as they can just be taken due to their high material value. So overall queen>chancellor.
These ratings are from either computer simulations or people who play with these pieces frequently, so inexperience with the piece shouldn't be the issue. Near as I can tell the reason why queens are a bit better than Chancellors is that...while bishops and knights are "equal value pieces" that's only because bishops are colourblind--they can only reach half the squares. Rook movement fixes the bishop's colourblindness so now you have a bishop that *can* reach all the squares. It's the same reason Bishop+Knight is nearly as good as Rook+Knight--Knight movement allows the bishop to switch colours. (Capablanca Chess has Bishop+Knight worth 8.75 and Rook+Knight worth 9. A different computer simulation I've seen put Bishop+Knight at 7.7, and Rook+Knight at 8-8.5). A bishop that somehow had the ability to switch colours would be worth...somewhere around 4.5 I suspect? Similarly, a Knight that couldn't switch colours--this is an old fairy chess piece too, it's called a Camel, and it does (1,3) jumps instead of (1,2) jumps. Because this piece can't switch colours it's only worth about 2, whereas knights are worth 3. Not being able to switch colours is a big deal.
Comparing the longest checkmates for K+Q vs K and K+C vs K might be a good way to assess the relative strengths of the queen vs the chancellor. In the K+Q vs K endgame, the longest checkmates are 10 moves. Many years ago, I created a tablebase for K+C vs K, and the longest checkmates are 11 moves, suggesting the queen has somewhat more firepower than the chancellor. On the other hand, when I created a four-piece tablebase for K+Q vs K+C to have the two pieces battle each other, the queen came out slightly better, but the results were close, with draws predominating. By the way, I also build a tablebase for a piece combining bishop and knight (call it an archbishop) and the result surprised me: the longest checkmate for K+A vs K is 17 moves, more than the rook! (For K+R vs K, the longest mate is 16 moves.)
I’d like to see a game where black has a normal set of pieces and white has all the same except the queen is replaced by a chancellor. My guess is that black would win in a stockfish match.
If the chancellor can infiltrate then it wins the match, otherwise it's impossible, with 2 rows of pawns they can set themselves up as never allowing for infiltration.
1:24 I don’t get it… that’s checkmate. Edit: ah right, I go back to the beginning and realise it’s actually a shit piece, gains the power of a knight but loses the power of a bishop. Why am I watching this video then?
Most ratings I've seen put queens slightly higher value than a Chancellor--Capablanca Chess has Chancellor at 9, queen at 9.5. I've also seen computer simulations that put Queen at 9.75 and Chancellor at 8.5.
Why is that?
Maybe because Chancellor is a fairy piece. So it’s kinda hard to use it without wasting your time. You are all familiar with playing Queen rather than Chancellor
Other than that idk
@@blakejhonshen2710
Queens (rook+bishop) and chancellors (rook+knight) are great in open positions due to amount of moves they can perform in these positions. However in an open position a bishop has a larger variety of moves than a knight so it will favor that. In a closed position a chancellor would theoretically be better, but it does not have the same outpost options that regular knights have as they can just be taken due to their high material value. So overall queen>chancellor.
These ratings are from either computer simulations or people who play with these pieces frequently, so inexperience with the piece shouldn't be the issue.
Near as I can tell the reason why queens are a bit better than Chancellors is that...while bishops and knights are "equal value pieces" that's only because bishops are colourblind--they can only reach half the squares. Rook movement fixes the bishop's colourblindness so now you have a bishop that *can* reach all the squares.
It's the same reason Bishop+Knight is nearly as good as Rook+Knight--Knight movement allows the bishop to switch colours. (Capablanca Chess has Bishop+Knight worth 8.75 and Rook+Knight worth 9. A different computer simulation I've seen put Bishop+Knight at 7.7, and Rook+Knight at 8-8.5).
A bishop that somehow had the ability to switch colours would be worth...somewhere around 4.5 I suspect?
Similarly, a Knight that couldn't switch colours--this is an old fairy chess piece too, it's called a Camel, and it does (1,3) jumps instead of (1,2) jumps. Because this piece can't switch colours it's only worth about 2, whereas knights are worth 3. Not being able to switch colours is a big deal.
Comparing the longest checkmates for K+Q vs K and K+C vs K might be a good way to assess the relative strengths of the queen vs the chancellor. In the K+Q vs K endgame, the longest checkmates are 10 moves. Many years ago, I created a tablebase for K+C vs K, and the longest checkmates are 11 moves, suggesting the queen has somewhat more firepower than the chancellor. On the other hand, when I created a four-piece tablebase for K+Q vs K+C to have the two pieces battle each other, the queen came out slightly better, but the results were close, with draws predominating.
By the way, I also build a tablebase for a piece combining bishop and knight (call it an archbishop) and the result surprised me: the longest checkmate for K+A vs K is 17 moves, more than the rook! (For K+R vs K, the longest mate is 16 moves.)
When pawn chain is unbreakable the game becomes nightmare
The sound when you capture a piece. It is so amazing. Relaxing yet eye opening. Sounds like the pieces are eating the others. Mmmm lol
I’d like to see a game where black has a normal set of pieces and white has all the same except the queen is replaced by a chancellor. My guess is that black would win in a stockfish match.
Very nice video
Without a doubt these fairy pieces are too powerful compared to the standard ones, and I like it
♥️
If the chancellor can infiltrate then it wins the match, otherwise it's impossible, with 2 rows of pawns they can set themselves up as never allowing for infiltration.
The thumbnail made me think this was Agadmator for a moment
The 4th game sucks. The stupid chancellor couldn't come in to sweep up the pawns like in the other games.
good video
Glad you enjoyed
so cool!
where did you play this
black should be able to adjust the positions of rank 6 pawns at the beginning. Otherwise it is meaningless.
Like ✌️😃
✌ Thank you
how do this?
Which GUI is this?
Chancellor cannot beat 12 pawns if rank 6 pawns are at file bcfg. Neither can amazon.
4th game chancellor got chancelled
Hi
1:24 I don’t get it… that’s checkmate.
Edit: ah right, I go back to the beginning and realise it’s actually a shit piece, gains the power of a knight but loses the power of a bishop.
Why am I watching this video then?
Name checks out
Koi coach he to mujhe ahikhao ge chess to plz contact number do