Derek Nalls wrote on Sat, May 3, 2008 05:20 PM UTC:
re: Muller's assessment of 5 methods of deriving material values for CRC pieces
'I am not sure how much of the agreement between (3) and (4) can be
ascribed to the playtesting, and how much to the theoretical arguments
...'
As much playtesting as possible. Unfortunately, that amount is deficient
by my standards (and yours). I have tried to compensate for marginal
quantity with high quality via long time controls. You use a converse
approach with opposite emphasis. Given enough years (working with
only one server), this quantity of well-played games may eventually
become adequate.
' ... and it is not clear how well the theoretical arguments are able to
PREdict piece values rather than POSTdict them.'
You have pinpointed my greatest disappointment and frustration thusfar
with my ongoing work. To date, my theoretical model has not made
any impressive predictions verified by playtesting. To the contrary,
it has been revised, expanded and complicated many times upon
discovery that it was grossly in error or out of conformity with reality.
Although the foundations of the theoretical model are built upon
arithmetic and geometry to the greatest extent possible with verifiable
phenomena important to material values of pieces used logically for
refinements, mathematical modelling can be misused to postulate and
describe in detail the existence of almost any imaginable non-existent
phenomena. For example, the Ptolemy model of the solar system.
