There are a number of techniques we have to try and determine a piece's value. One thing I use to add more merit to the Archbishop is 'safe check' plus 'solo mate' summations. Since the Archbishop can not only deliver a check, but a mate as well, should that not increase its worth?

So, I sum over all the squares where the solo-mate occurs, add that to the sum of checks, then divide by the number of squares (multiplied by king arrangements first, of course.)

Basically, I found Archbishop is like Bishop + Knight plus 2 pawns, while Chancellor is like Rook + Knight plus about 1.25 pawns.

We can't really have "hard values" for the pieces for every scenario.

Two knights in regular chess are 300 + 300 = 600, which is greater than the Rook at 500. But what happens with 0 pawns? The Rook can mate, the 2 Knights can't!

So, you have to turn 2 Knights into "0" with 0 pawns and 0 other pieces on the board, since at best they can draw a lone king.

Clearly 2 knights are stronger than the Rook with most non-zero pawn counts on the board.

But we can debate this endlessly.

My question is, which is stronger?

Knight + Archbishop or Queen?
Archbishop + Rook or Bishop and Chancellor?
Bishop + Archbishop or Chancellor and Pawn?

These are compex issues.