Derek Nalls wrote on Sat, Apr 26, 2008 11:05 PM UTC:
Since ...
A. The argumentative posts of Muller (mainly against Scharnagl & Aberg)
in advocacy of his model for relative piece values in CRC are
neverending.
B. My absence from this melee has not spared my curious mind the agony of
reading them at all.
... I hope I can help-out by returning briefly just to point-out the six
most serious, directly-paradoxical and obvious problems with Muller's
model.
1. The archbishop (102.94) is very nearly as valuable as the chancellor
(105.88)- 97.22%.
2. The archbishop (102.94) is nearly as valuable as the queen (111.76)-
92.11%.
3. One archbishop (102.94) is nearly as valuable as two rooks (2 x
55.88)- 92.11%. In other words, one rook (55.88) is only a little more
than half as valuable as one archbishop (102.94)- 54.28%.
4. Two rooks (2 x 55.88) have a value exactly equal to one queen
(111.76).
5. One knight (35.29) plus one rook (55.88) are markedly less valuable
than one archbishop (102.94)- 88.57%.
6. One bishop (45.88) plus one rook (55.88) are less valuable than one
archbishop (102.94)- 98.85%.
None of these problems exist within the reputable models by Nalls,
Scharnagl, Kaufmann, Trice or Aberg. You must honestly address all of
these important concerns or realistically expect to be ignored.
