Well, 2700+ play could be of interest one day (that is, may matter, in spite of being dismissed as if that level of play should be treated in that type of [different, i.e. dismissive] way no matter what), if someone were to imply they know the actual difference, if any, between a B and a N on average for 8x8 [chess]. Computer study results, perhaps at times implying they have established the truth of piece values, are already posted all over the internet, not just here on CVP, where readers/players are all presently presumed to be sub-2700. Even thus, readers of CVP might care out of curiosity alone to know the ultimate truth, however established, even if they do not benefit by it very often, if ever, in their own games, unless they become [near-]2700+ themselves one day. A lot of people finding it interesting to know that 8x8 checkers has been weakly solved in modern times is somewhat comparable, perhaps.
That explanation of margins of error doesn't mention a thing or two that might go wrong if any assumptions are made at any step, such as assuming the presumed materially weaker side will never win the most games in a study [especially if only a few hundred games] by a possible fluke, even if unlikely.
Then, there is my own hypothesis that the larger in value/(more powerful) a piece is, the greater a certain margin of error might need to be within a study.
Perhaps unrelated(? - cannot recall if we discussed ever), 4 [uncompensated]tempi (worth 1/3rd of a pawn each in an open position), or 4/3rds of a pawn might be a normal minimum decisive edge, at least that's in line with an old-school rule of thumb I saw in an old book 'Point Count Chess', where a pawn is 3 points and 4 points ahead is supposed decisive (again, 1 pawn = 3 tempi in an open position is an old rule from even longer ago).
Well, 2700+ play could be of interest one day (that is, may matter, in spite of being dismissed as if that level of play should be treated in that type of [different, i.e. dismissive] way no matter what), if someone were to imply they know the actual difference, if any, between a B and a N on average for 8x8 [chess]. Computer study results, perhaps at times implying they have established the truth of piece values, are already posted all over the internet, not just here on CVP, where readers/players are all presently presumed to be sub-2700. Even thus, readers of CVP might care out of curiosity alone to know the ultimate truth, however established, even if they do not benefit by it very often, if ever, in their own games, unless they become [near-]2700+ themselves one day. A lot of people finding it interesting to know that 8x8 checkers has been weakly solved in modern times is somewhat comparable, perhaps.
That explanation of margins of error doesn't mention a thing or two that might go wrong if any assumptions are made at any step, such as assuming the presumed materially weaker side will never win the most games in a study [especially if only a few hundred games] by a possible fluke, even if unlikely.
Then, there is my own hypothesis that the larger in value/(more powerful) a piece is, the greater a certain margin of error might need to be within a study.
Perhaps unrelated(? - cannot recall if we discussed ever), 4 [uncompensated]tempi (worth 1/3rd of a pawn each in an open position), or 4/3rds of a pawn might be a normal minimum decisive edge, at least that's in line with an old-school rule of thumb I saw in an old book 'Point Count Chess', where a pawn is 3 points and 4 points ahead is supposed decisive (again, 1 pawn = 3 tempi in an open position is an old rule from even longer ago).