Chessbase in its current rare foray into CVs is incorrect in its assessment respecting 10x10 Knight-to-Bishop valuations. Actually Chessbase recently raised coverage of Chess960 and we can hope for more growth from them. CVers have learned to keep Knight equality with Bishop as boards increase. There are obviously four basic chess pieces -- three of long standing, since Bishop replaced Alfil 500 years ago. The other fundamental pair Falcon-to-Rook pretty well take care of themselves as conveniently and interestingly equal in any size 6x6 through probably 12x12. Beyond 144 to bizarre sizes, of course Rook has long-range advantage become harder to compensate naturally chiefly by starting array and strengthening of Pawns. Well, Knight too we have found stays close to Bishop in boards 9x9, 8x10, 9x10, 10x10, 11x11, 12x12 -- that same general upper middle range. The reasons are several, and there has to be implementation of the principles, or Bishop will indeed gain toward 3.5 to 2.5. Such as uncreative Capablanca Chess 10x10, his original idea for sizing, does show 3.5/2.5 hurting the Knight. We usually try to avoid any such disparity and keep Knight worth 3.0+. Firstly, we rarely do as Omega Chess(MacDonald) and let piece density slide too low on 100 squares or close to it. With 50% piece density Bishop is not particularly more mobile, and it is harder to coordinate the Bishop pair, so the two actually lose that tandem advantage held at 8x8 or 8x9. On 100 squares it becomes more important that Knight reaches every square and one Bishop only his mere half. With close to 50% density, Knights often get placed in the second rank initially and even centrally. That alone mostly solves the problem of divergence of value. Another reason Knight keeps approximate parity with Bishop on greater than 64 squares is that Pawn enhancements benefit Knight relatively. Almost automatically there is unmoved Pawn three-step when ranks increase. Stronger Pawns keep Bishop (and Queen) muted and help oblique Knight maneuvres. All the above reasons do not even consider occasional adding Camel or else Zebra to Knight; when either is done, ''Knight'' considerably exceeds Bishop in value. So, there are the two astonishing corresponding equalities that can be generally counted on holding, so long as board sizes and shapes are close to normal and design is appropriately reactive. http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=17227