Single Comment

'very close to being proportional to mobility squared'

I always thought that forking power should depend on number of
directions.

A recent comment made me wonder if I had, in effect, been underestimating
the
forking power of moves such as Bc4xf7+ (attacking both Ke8 and Ng8, for
example  1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bb4 5 Bb4 c3 6 Qb3 Na5 (in 1985,
in the Harding-Botterill book 'The Italian Game', this was ignored as a
simple error). 
After 8 Bxf7+ Kf8 9 Qa4 c6 , White needs to play Bxg8 to avoid losing a
piece.

In 2003, opponents on FICS will play 6...Na5. This discussion of
theoretical 
piece values ties directly into actual practical everyday playing of FIDE
Chess!

If there were a mathematical calculation for the Max Lange Attack or for
the Evans Gambit, it would make me unhappy; but if this calculation opened
the way to inventing a Max Lange equivalent in the Rookies versus
Colbberers game, I'd be happy overall.

In this discussion, we are asking questions that go far beyond the norm,
and if our findings ever allow one to answer 'what's the best move in
*this* position according to *these* rules, I think that none of us will
be happy with the result.

Basta Philosophy! 'Mobility squared'.

'Mobility squared' was always the sort of thing I felt iffy about. A
simple math, seems so attractive, as a chess master I doubted that things
were so clean.

In my early calcs, I know I tried to use something squared, maybe geom
dist,
and later I shied away from simple squared. Maybe something squared is
correct! 
If you prove I was wrong you may win the Nobel Prize for piece values
research.

(This is no joke, Do a web search, find how many professional
mathematicians link
to my values pages, and how few try to contribute.)

I always feared handwaving. 'How to Lie with Statistics' is a very good
book, and
it is very applicable to our field of endeavour.  I would always rather
miss a discovery rather than present a flawed arg for it. 

Thus I am prejudiced against anything squared. It seems too simple. 

However, I will listen; and my own personal judgment is far from final, as
I may be superceded.

What I am trying to say is that a good result may turn out to be a false
lead.

I mean, today you get numbers that look good, tomorrow raises doubts.

In order to feel this sort of pessimism, you need to be old enough to have

gone through a few cycles of Eureka! and Oops!.

Maybe you have something golden. I hope so.

It is late. I was thinking of deleting this whole comment and remaining
silent,

Instead, I will trust your judgment to take it for what it is worth.