TalkChess.com

[H.G.Muller]

The consequences of color-binding in general are actually a quite interesting. The strategy to set up defense against a color-bound piece (+Pawns) on the color where it cannot get is generally applicable, and not limited to unlike color-bound pieces. But in orthodox Chess this is not so noticeable, because a Knight is a color-alternator, and thus needs to be on one color to exert influence over the other, and can be harassed there. A Rook can access both colors, but it is easy to stay on the one not accessible to the opponent. Indeed a Rook has not much trouble defending against BPP, just as an unlike B would have, but that is kind of expected, because a Rook is assumed to be worth two Pawns more than a Bishop.

In Spartan Chess the two lightest pieces of the Spartans (Captain and Lieutenant) have both color-changing and color-preserving moves, and both have a value close to that of Knight/Bishop. So in Spartan Chess you can have a situation where the Persions, with BPP, have difficulty to overcome a defence bya single C or L staged purely on the other color than the Bishop, the Captain only using its (2,0) moves, and the Lieutenant only the (1,1) and (2,2) moves, after they switched to the right color. So these end-games could have the same drawishness as that of unlike Bishops in orthodox Chess, easily fencing off a majority of 2 Pawns.

For the Spartans, and in Berolina Chess, which uses the same Pawns that capture straight and move diagonally, another interesting phenomenon occurs. Pawns become effectively color-bound (as long as they don't capture), and you could get into positions where the color-bound Bishop cannot hinder them at all, because they are on the other color. They just march on to promotion. So the concept 'bad Bishop' can take on dramatic dimensions, the Bishop becoming virtually worthless as a defender (other than being a sink of moves to avoid zugzwang).