Enter Your Reply The Comment You're Replying To Derek Nalls wrote on Mon, May 23, 2011 11:16 PM UTC:JL: You have a lot of imaginative and critical ideas on the subject of piece values. Firstly, I have a couple of constructive recommendations. 1. Read my entire 65-page paper. Work with it until you understand it. [At least, in theory. Preferably, in calculation.] Then, you will be enabled to intelligently revise (and greatly shorten, I am confident) your list of valid objections and problems you find with its theoretical framework. 2. Create your own theory of the 'Universal calculation of piece values' (or whatever you consider appropriate to entitle it) that is roughly consistent with measured, established piece values in FRC & CRC. ________________________________________________ Note that if your work is not substantially shorter than mine at appr. 65 pages, then it has nonetheless failed to achieve the supremely-important, comparative advantage demanded by Occam's Razor- essentially, to produce a simpler or more elegant model that fully accounts for reality. This would render your theory highly suspect of being comparatively, unnecessarily overcomplicated ... despite how much you favored it or how hard you worked on it. Be mindful that the more factors you explicitly accommodate and calculate within your theory, the longer you make it. So, it is critically important to be as discerning as possible about what is and is not non-trivially efficacious to measured piece values. [In other words, leave the rest of your observations and details in your private file notes, not your public, published work.] ... Finally, I should emphasize that my theory is primarily a workable framework of calculation for FRC & CRC piece values and secondarily (by a vast amount) an explanation of the concepts considered important enough to merit calculation as factors. So, I actually have little interest in semantic arguments about these concepts with anyone. Besides, if you convinced me that the concepts I use to calculate are invalid, then my calculations would be thrust into gross inaccuracy against measurable, indisputable reality. I prefer to keep my calculations consistent with established piece values in FRC worldwide and in CRC (esp. Muller's experiments). Hint: It is more important for criticisms to be very well thought through than original works because original works are harder and more time-consuming to create from scratch. Typically, I notice a lot more sloppy, fast hellraising by trolls than conscientious work. Edit Form You may not post a new comment, because ItemID ARCHBISHOP Value does not match any item.