I prefer to await Scharnagl's expert opinion on why SMIRF does not win every game under computer tournament conditions where time allowances per move are extremely small.  Of course, this precariously presumes that he wishes to comment after your wholesale insulting remarks toward SMIRF.  

This 'Battle Of The Goths Championship 2008' is a strange exercise with AI results that are virtually worthless theoretically due to the 'virtually instantaneous' execution of moves for each program involved.  I suspect that the entire purpose of this 'tournament' is contrived to seem to demonstrate the universal superiority of Joker80 where, in fact, the limited superiority at 'speed chess' only- a trivial achievement- is being demonstrated.
______________

'The ones who determine the facts through accurate measurement thus contribute in an absolutely essential way to our understanding, as without such facts the theoreticians cannot even start their work.'

Exactly!  That is how I constructed my theory.  How did you construct your theory?  Let's discuss 'accurate measurement' in a bit more detail since you claim to know so much about it.

Except for opening books, endgame tablebases and some 'very obvious, checkmate or no choice moves' that may arise within the midgame, it is generally true that there is a direct relation between the maximum search time a computer is allowed per move [Ply depth completion is actually the more important criterion but it is a function of time.] and the quality of the moves found or generated.

Since 

every move within a game is important and potentially, critically so
(although the importance of the first move of the game is greatest and the
importance of the last move of the game is least)

AND

every move during the game depends critically upon all previous moves by both players for its best chance of being a successful step toward the goal of victory,

it is critically important that every move generated via computer AI be of the highest quality possible for the results to have the highest chances of being theoretically instructive, relevant and valuable instead of mostly-purely random.

Otherwise, you have not adequately distilled each side to play as resourcefully as possible to definitively determine which side probably possesses the ultimate advantage or disadvantage via your gametests with different armies.  This is a vital prerequisite to enable you to derive relative piece values that are reliable at all.

This is true to the extreme for chess variants related the Chess such as 
Capablanca chess variants for which the game-winning objective is to capture a single royal piece (i.e., king) regardless of material sacrifice.  Consequently, the levels of depth and irony inherent to chess variants of this type of design are very high.

The effectiveness of traps is based upon the fact that, upon naive inspection, what looks like 'the best move available upon the board' can, in reality, be 'the worst move available upon the board'.  Obviously, it is critical to correctly distinguish between the two wherever they arise within a game.  It is not just humans that are susceptible to falling into traps.  Chess supercomputers have made similar mistakes. [See Kasparov vs. Deep Blue I.]  

For example, an 8-ply search completion may lead a computer to recommend 
a very bad move that it would never recommend if allowed a 10-ply search 
completion.  However, the deeper the search ply completion, the less likely for a 'dramatic irony' of this type to exist and remain dangerously undiscovered.

So ... what do you think you have accomplished by generating 20,000+ very badly played games (obviously) via ultra-fast, ultra-shallow depth moves?
This monumental exercise in 'mindless woodpushing' can only have a 
statistically random effect reflecting the tendencies of the individual chess programs involved to spit-out moves when forced to do so before being given adequate time to explore enough plies to play any better than the moron level.  This could have some minimal value if chess variants related to chess were games well-suited for morons to play competently.  However, they are well-suited only for genii to play competently ... albeit usually and only with extensive training, effort and experience.

In summary, you might as well blow the pieces across the gameboard with strong fans.  The results of this type of 'mindless woodpushing' would be only slightly less significant to your misguided effort to devise the 'most accurate relative piece values for CRC in existence' (by your claim) than this method you are presently using.
________________________________________________

'Why would I read a 58-page monologue from someone adhering to such flawed logic?  It can only be a waste of time.'

I wish to echo Scharnagl's remark that (paraphrased) 'my published model is still a work in progress'.  Nonetheless ... If you fail to read anything, then you fail to learn anything.  You should be able to learn something from my mis-steps as well as my correct steps.

The figures within everyone else's published models for the relative piece values of CRC pieces upon the 10 x 8 board implicitly agree with mine that the archbishop is significantly less valuable than the chancellor.  So, you are not just characterizing my published work as 'worthless nonsense'.  Logically, you must also be characterizing the published works of everyone else of note (namely, Aberg, Trice, Scharnagl) likewise for the single reason that we do not share your radical view that the archbishop and the chancellor have appr. equal value.

Furthermore, under your model, the archbishop is only a little less valuable than the queen which is another radical contention on your part that demands much defense.