Enter Your Reply

Rest assured, I am interested in and supportive of the effort to define a
general mathematical formula for determining the average length of chess
variant games ... if possible.  However, I must echo Thompson in
insisting
that the persons responsible 'show their work' and publish it (without
clutter) upon a seperate web page.  A complete, step-by-step presentation
and definition of each term in the calculation is needed as well as a
logical, conceptual explanation of the indispensible nature of each term
within it.  It needs to be evaluated for fundamental validity and
possibly, revised.

I suspect the efforts to date are incomplete, inaccurate or conceptually
flawed since I cannot rationally imagine what mathematical formula can
predict or dictate the level of aggression freely chosen by both players
and hence, the actual length of a game (measured in moves) with any
accuracy or even within a strict range from minimum to maximum moves. 
Although I think an optimum, average level of aggression exists in theory
and is somehow definable by formula, specific to a given chess variant,
for rational, incisive play, I am certain that the rules of virtually
every chess variant do not enforce its use upon its players in any way.

Even if a valid, crude formula has been successfully produced by Smith
and
Duke, every chess variant will need a positive or negative adjustment,
significantly sizeable in some cases, due to its opening setup.  [Some
stable opening setups are highly buffered; some stable opening setups are

hair-triggered].  Furthermore, game-specific calculations focused upon
trapping royal pieces with different, likely amounts of material are
indispensible to make any estimate of the endgame length for various
games. 

If I misunderstand in expecting a mere, useful estimate to be more
rigorous than ever intended, I apologize.