Single Comment

Let's open the discussion to designers not actively programming 
now. There is a lot of two-tracking in CVPage. One example of double track
is that most designers see their work as art and become prolificists
(Betza, Gilman), the more ''paintings'' in their portfolio the better;
whereas few others want to replace standard FIDE form logically (Duke,
Trice, FischerRandom, Duniho's Eurasian, Joyce's Great Shatranj). The two camps talk at cross-purposes. Two other(different) opposite tracks may be seen this thread, namely, between player and programmer. Staightforward heuristic for player (usually designer too hereabouts), to make ongoing alterable piece-value estimates, certainly refining if possible to within 0.1 of a Pawn, their being so many hundreds of CVs to compute, of course will not do in itself for programmer. It is interesting, that's all, that the player's recipe is rejected immediately by the programmer. Player would gravitate to '1)' and '4)' rather than programmer-popular '2)' and '3)'. Another topic to relate here is proven fallacy after 400 years of emphasized Centaur(BN) and Champion (RN) anyway, discussed much in 2007, to be resurrected in follow-up. // In response to Gifford's:  Computers will never write rhymed lines this century where every syllable matches in rhyme like: ''The avatar Horus' all-seeing Eye/ We have a star-chorus rallying cry.'' Granted most would not like style of writing, but still Computer cannot do it, rhyme every word with meaning. Similarly, we need games Computer cannot play well, or be expected to ever, using hidden information like Kriegspiel if that's what it takes, or Rules changing within score, or something else. Surely the main reason for vanishing interest in Mad Queen is Computer dominance in all aspects.