I suppose it does, but I haven't tested that. In principle I try to test imbalances that are as equal as possible, so when testing Q vs KK I would have the Q player face Pawn odds, i.e. test Q vs KK+P. For Q vs A+P the Archbishop player has a slight advantage (~54%).
I also haven't tested mQ[cQ-mQ][pQ-oK-bcK] yet; it should be still stronger than mQ[cQ-mK][pQ-oK-bcK]. But based on the test with these pieces without the edge capture, the difference should not be huge. So if the planned army turns out to be to weak, I can upgrade the KK to that.
I don't think the Cricket gets stronger in the end-game, at least not compared to regular sliders. The capture component should behave the same as those, but the moving gets really restricted when the number of mounts dwindles.
As for the KK, on a near empty board it should be practically equal to a Queen, and since the empirical initial value is only about 100cP weaker, the increase cannot be very large. Betza counts it as 0.7 x Queen, based on his 'magic number' for board occupancy and the fact that it needs an extra empty square to capture. With the initial occupancy it would even be only half. This could be partly counteracted by the fact that it can capture protected pieces. At least, for the grasshopping version 'protection' would mean something else, namely attacking the square behind the piece you want to protect. But that is more difficult if you have to do it against attacks from various directions, while protecting against replacement capture is independent of direction. And a piece with a capture mode different from the majority has an advantage, as the opponent would build his position to be robust against the majority, leaving weaknesses against alternative threats.
Anyway, having pieces that increase in value doesn't seem so much of a problem. The same could be said for Rooks; these are pretty useless before there are open files too. Sooner or later these pieces will come into play. On a fully occupied board you are not short of defenders. Chess games are lost because of material superiority in the end-game. When you are a piece behind in the early middle-game that is hardly noticeable, and doesn't offer the opponent very much opportunity to increase his lead. That is why material-odds games in Shogi work so well; even when 3 or 4 pieces ahead you need to work really hard to win. While in Chess you just trade down the opponent to nothingness. If an instantaneous material advantage is based on large board occupancy trading down is no longer a way to cash on it.
I suppose it does, but I haven't tested that. In principle I try to test imbalances that are as equal as possible, so when testing Q vs KK I would have the Q player face Pawn odds, i.e. test Q vs KK+P. For Q vs A+P the Archbishop player has a slight advantage (~54%).
I also haven't tested mQ[cQ-mQ][pQ-oK-bcK] yet; it should be still stronger than mQ[cQ-mK][pQ-oK-bcK]. But based on the test with these pieces without the edge capture, the difference should not be huge. So if the planned army turns out to be to weak, I can upgrade the KK to that.
I don't think the Cricket gets stronger in the end-game, at least not compared to regular sliders. The capture component should behave the same as those, but the moving gets really restricted when the number of mounts dwindles.
As for the KK, on a near empty board it should be practically equal to a Queen, and since the empirical initial value is only about 100cP weaker, the increase cannot be very large. Betza counts it as 0.7 x Queen, based on his 'magic number' for board occupancy and the fact that it needs an extra empty square to capture. With the initial occupancy it would even be only half. This could be partly counteracted by the fact that it can capture protected pieces. At least, for the grasshopping version 'protection' would mean something else, namely attacking the square behind the piece you want to protect. But that is more difficult if you have to do it against attacks from various directions, while protecting against replacement capture is independent of direction. And a piece with a capture mode different from the majority has an advantage, as the opponent would build his position to be robust against the majority, leaving weaknesses against alternative threats.
Anyway, having pieces that increase in value doesn't seem so much of a problem. The same could be said for Rooks; these are pretty useless before there are open files too. Sooner or later these pieces will come into play. On a fully occupied board you are not short of defenders. Chess games are lost because of material superiority in the end-game. When you are a piece behind in the early middle-game that is hardly noticeable, and doesn't offer the opponent very much opportunity to increase his lead. That is why material-odds games in Shogi work so well; even when 3 or 4 pieces ahead you need to work really hard to win. While in Chess you just trade down the opponent to nothingness. If an instantaneous material advantage is based on large board occupancy trading down is no longer a way to cash on it.