Derek Nalls wrote on Tue, May 24, 2011 05:48 AM UTC:
'Then your theory is utterly devoid of value.'
Do you really expect me to believe you miraculously know that
for certain when you haven't even read the vast majority of it?
Therefore, your opinion must be, by your own admission,
uninformed...
In my (informed) opinion, the theory is of marginal value.
Nonetheless, it is one of very few as well as possibly the best
neatly-organized and written work in existence even though
I am dis-satisfied with it since it has insufficient predictive
value across a range of unrelated chess variants. Specifically,
it is only proven to work well with games closely related to FRC.
I consider this work a valuable, useful resource to anyone in
the chess variant community who is working to devise a better
theory than mine and appropriately, I will continue to make it
available.
________________________________________________
'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.'
Trustworthy results cannot be recognized as such wherever
piece values are unknown. Yet piece values are currently
reasonably well established only in FRC & CRC. So,
the obstacles to creating an accurate, universal theory are
formidable ... if not overwhelming.
To the contrary! I find the theoretical explanations for the
concepts that are used in calculation within my theory quite
believable and even, compelling. ...
___________________________________
'I am happy to read a 65-page document, or even longer,
if a short sample or synopsis suggests it to be worth reading.'
...
When offered a usable framework for piece value calculation
that only requires arithmetic (some of it based upon plane
geometry), you avoid it ...
______________________________________________
'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.'
Why don't you just admit you got lost and didn't understand
the excerpt you read and furthermore, admit you were
mistaken to recklessly disregard my follow-up advice to read
the entire paper?
______________________________________________________
'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.'
Concepts well known to chess variant theorists (and generally
agreed with as being relevant except by radicals) are what
drive the piece value calculations.
Mathematical modelling can also be a way of telling the truth
with numbers (which is my mission). I am aware of its dangers
and limitations but I pity any [one] who thinks he/she can
possibly devise a successful piece value theory that contradicts
important established, measurable, experimental results.
Again and again ... no idea what you are talking
about! Why? Because you have not read the paper.
That exemplifies why I recommended that you read the paper.
In the absence of information, you are just ... compounding
your errors and misconceptions about it.
_____________________________________
'... and that you have no interest in a theory with actual
predictive or explanatory power.'
I have strong interest in and preference for a theory with
predictive and explanatory power. Unfortunately, noone has
successfully devised it yet.
________________________
'... 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.'
I never stated or meant that writing your own theory is a
prerequisite to critiquing mine ... but reading mine is.
I rightly place very little value in knee-jerk reactions ...
The point of my previous message was not using any unfair
exclusivist arguments against you. I was just trying to
encourage you to create something constructive and giving
sound advice ...
Do your homework!
Then, we can talk ... about my theory.
