Single Comment

H.G., thanks for the investigation. It largely corroborates my intuitive evaluation with the aid of Zillions. It must be correct that an intelligent handling of the bifurcators, drawing on experience, must increase their value somewhat. Comparatively, chess programs are taught to place the knights in the centre rather than at the edge. A corresponding type of knowledge would have to be programmed if bifurcators are implemented in commercial programs. 

Bifurcators are not that strange if one compares them to the Asian cannons. The latter are also dependent on a screen for capture capability or movement. So bifurcators are related to the cannons. However, due to their low value, the Asian cannons won't work well in a Western piece context. But it is now proven beyond doubt that bifurcators work fine among bishops and knights. I have also invented some cannons proper, but their orthogonal jumping capability means that they are more difficult to harmonize with the dense board situation. So I have had to curtail their range beyond the enemy pawns. This is generally not necessary in case of bifurcators because of the oblique movement. However, Western chess players don't seem particularly fond of cannons and pieces dependent on screens. No doubt, they are more demanding. Korean Chess revolves much around the problem of activating the cannon.
/Mats