Enter Your Reply

George, are you saying [in your 2007-07-27 CVComment] that you use a method
similar to JKLewis, who inserts test pieces into a live game position?
Although he uses 1 specific position, and apparently you may use many, the
basic concept is 'real-world test, under actual conditions' for both,
yes? No? And I have a bad sense of direction; I often miss the point.
Heck, sometimes I miss the entire party. But I believe in looking
seriously at obvious exceptions or clearly extreme cases only after there
is some sort of explanatory framework for the common and the
occasional/easily recognizeable cases. I'll take a theory of the familiar
and easy first. But, as I've said before, I'm conservative in a lot of
ways. If you can tie the analysis of outre pieces into your work on the
commoner pieces, great! You've saved a lot of work on the other end.

Graeme, I was probably optimistic when I suggested we could get 90 to 95%
accuracy on initial piece evaluations. Half a pawn vs a rook is 10%, 0.5
to 5.0. Once you get past queen, you're down to 5%, 1 part in 20. This is
exactly the range Derek is talking about, and the answer is exactly what he
suggests. But this is an enormous effort [possibly we could tie the human
part into a tournament or three], so there are some considerations.

My question is: 'what games do we look at?' What games, what pieces,
what sizes...? Initially, I'd recommend treating games that fall
somewhere within the 8x8 to 10x10 size range. These are the most popular
sizes. More next time.