Nalls: 'Besides, if you convinced me that the concepts I use to
calculate
are invalid, then my calculations would be thrust into gross inaccuracy
against measurable, indisputable reality. I prefer to keep my
calculations
consistent with established piece values in FRC worldwide and in CRC (esp.
Muller's experiments).'
Then your theory is utterly devoid of value. If it produces trustworthy
results only for the values we already know, and does not even provide a
believable explanation for why those values should be what they are, then
it fails even to confirm what we already know, let alone tell us anything
new. To what use could such a theory possibly be put?
I am happy to read a 65-page document, or even longer, if a short sample
or
synopsis suggests it to be worth reading. I read all of Betza's work on
the values of Chess pieces that I could find.
...
The sample of your work (selected by you) that I read suggested your ideas
are poorly-explained, ill-justified, and at times directly contradictory
with observed facts. It looks like you simply made up arbitrary modifiers
in order to get the quantitative results you were expecting, which is just
a way of lying with numbers. Your follow-up comments suggest that's
exactly what you intended, and that you have no interest in a theory with
actual predictive or explanatory power...
And suggesting that I need to have my own universal theory of piece values
in order to critique yours is... not how criticism works in ANY field.
