Single Comment

Quite a list, but it leaves one wishing for more info. Sam and Jeremy have made some nice starts on adding that info, with their articles on pieces. 
George, you made 2 statements in your comment here:
'we need the right evaluative criteria'
'It seems incumbent to develop systematic judging by principles other than playing.'
We are seeing new pieces [and boards], and new ways of looking at them and their values, appearing now. These developments just may give us useful tools to examine pieces beyond the FIDE mix with some accuracy. 

The comment was made:'Recently some have used the old cliche, 'Have you played it?''. As I was a leading proponent of that idea recently, I thought I might answer a small rebuttal. When you're in familiar territory, Mike Howe is right, you can make good judgements from careful reading, analysis, and mentally pushing some pieces to check interactions arising from the specific board, piece set and setup... For genuinely new pieces, boards or setups, I think one must push pieces long enough to gain the experience to make a good judgement in that unfamiliar territory. 

Finally, George, ''The Deranged Project''??? Lol! A thought I had myself often during its production. Now, I don't know about the project, but I'm certain I'm deranged and that project proves it. [Ms Bagley-Jones astutely bailed after her part in our combined insanity, apparently giving it - the insanity - up and returning to normality. Pity. She made good pieces and innovative games as well as all our ZRFs.] I'd be happy to welcome you to it. Your Falcon is a very pretty shortrange piece with a somewhat complex exact movement description. How do *you* think *it* fares against the unlimited sliders?