Would you like to play this crazy starting position against me?

In this position the queens will in fact always be just like bishops.

I'm a chess newbie but the evaluation of this position as equal isn't really a matter of strategy at all - just recognition of a couple of simple facts: White's bishops may as well be neutral roadblocks since neither player's pieces can ever enter those squares and they can never threaten the black pieces in any way. The queens might as well be bishops as alsoran points out since they can never enter black squares. Stockfish analysis at any depth is overkill.

Those two simple facts put together mean that the position is for all intents and purposes symmetrical: 5 white square bishops and a king vs 5 white square bishops and a king. Don't let the irrelevant clutter fool you into thinking it's more complicated than it is.

@WS83 just checked this variation and @acgusta2 is saying the truth this position is more complicated than it seen, and mating ideas hard to see. Anyways the position is equal highty probably.

Also in some symmetrical positions the player who makes the first move can have a huge advantage despite the material equality, so I needed to make sure that white didn't have a big advantage simply from making the first move, or alternatively that black wouldn't have the advantage as I have read before about a solved rotationally symmetric variant, in which black has a forced win, and so needed to make sure that there wasn't an easy to exploit zugzwang. That's why I used stockfish to make sure the position was fair before playing.

You're right of course that it might matter who goes first. My choice of words was imprecise. What I wanted to get across is that once you look past all of the litter on the board the position is actually a very, very simple one with equal material.

When opening analysis. SF is suggesting i move my bishop sideways and later forward. Quite strange.