Single Comment

'... the Battle-of-the-Goths tournament was played at 1 hour per game per side (55'+5'/move, the time on the clocks is displayed in the viewer). And
you call it speed Chess. Poof, there goes half your argument up in smoke.'

Sorry, I could not find the time per move on your crude web page.

Nonetheless, less than 1 minute per move is much too short to yield quality moves ... at least by anything better than low standards.
_________________________________________________________

'Not that it was any good to begin with: it is well known and amply tested
that the quality of computer play only is a very weak function of time
control.'

WRONG!

The quality of computer play correlates strongly as a function of ply depth completion which, in turn, is a function of time where exponentially greater time is generally required to complete each successive ply.
___________________________________________________________________

'The fact that you ask how 'my theory was constructed' is shocking.
Didn't you notice I did not present any theory at all?'

In fact, I have noticed that you have failed to present a theory to date.
I apologize for politely yet incorrectly giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had developed any theory at all unpublished but somewhere within your mind.  Do you actually prefer for me to state or imply that you are clueless even as you claim to be the world's foremost authority on the subject and claim the rest of us are stupid?  Fine then.
____________________________________________________________

'I just reported my OBSERVATION that quiet positions with C instead of A 
do not have a larger probability to win the game, and that in my opinion 
thus any concept of 'piece value' that does not ascribe nearly equal value to A and C is worse than useless.'

When you speak of what is needed to 'win the game' you are fixating upon the mating power of pieces which translates to endgame relative piece values- NOT opening game or midgame relative piece values.  Incidentally, relative piece values during the opening game are more important than during the midgame which, in turn, are more important than during the endgame.  Furthermore, I am particularly wary about the use of relative piece values at all during the endgame since any theoretically deep possibility to achieve checkmate (regardless of material sacrifices), discovered or undiscovered, renders relative piece values an absolutely non-applicable and false concept.

I strongly recommend that you shift your attention oppositely to the supremely-important opening game to derive more useful relative piece values.
_______

'So what have I think I proved by the battle-of-the-Goths long TC tourney
about the value of A and C? Nothing of course! Did I claim I did? No, 
that was just a figment of your imagination!'

I did not claim that I knew exactly how your ridiculous idea that an
archbishop is appr. equally valuable to a chancellor originated.  This 'tournament' of yours that I criticized just seems to be a part of your 'delusion maintenance' belief system.
__________________________________________

'It might be of interest to know that prof. Hyatt develops Crafty 
(one of the best open-source Chess engines) based on 40/1' games, 
as he has found that this is as accurate as using longer TC for relative 
performance measurement, and that Rybka (the best engine in the World)
is tuned through games of 40 moves per second.'

Now, you are completely confusing a method for QUICKLY and easily testing a computer hardware and software system to make sure it is operating properly with a method for achieving AI games consisting of highest quality moves of theoretical value to expert analysts of a given chess variant.

I have already explained some of this to you.  Gawd!
____________________________________________________

'The method you used (testing the effect of changing the piece values,
rather than the effect of changing the pieces) is highly inferior, and
needs about 100 times as many games to get the statistical noise down to
the same level as my method. (Because in most games, the mis-evaluated
pieces would still be traded against each other.)'

First, you are falsely inventing stats out of thin air!

If you really were competent with statistics, then you would know the
difference between their proper and improper application within your 
own work attempting to derive accurate relative piece values.

Second, you do not recognize (due to having no experience) the surprisingly great frequency with which a typical game between two otherwise-identical versions running a quality program with contrasting relative piece values will play into each other's most significant differences in the values of a piece.

Here is a hypothetical example ...

If white (incorrectly) values a rook significantly higher than an archbishop

AND

If black (correctly) values an archbishop significantly higher than a rook,

then the trade of white archbishop for a black rook will be readily
permitted by both programs and is very likely to actually occur at some point during a single game or a couple-few games at most.

Consequently, all things otherwise equal, white will probably lose most 
games which is indicative of a problem somewhere within its set of
relative piece values (compared to black).
__________________________________________

'If you are not prepared to face the facts, this discussion is pointless.'

When I reflect your remark back to you, I agree completely.
___________________________________________________________

'Play a few dozen games with Smirf, at any time control you feel
trustworthy, where one side lacks A and the other B+N, and see who is
crushed.'

relative piece values
opening game
(bishop pairs intact)

Muller

pawn  10.00
knight  35.29
bishop  45.88
rook  55.88
archbishop  102.94
chancellor  105.88
queen  111.76

Nalls

pawn  10.00
knight  30.77
bishop  37.56 
rook  59.43
archbishop  70.61
chancellor  94.18
queen  101.60

So, what is your problem?  Both of our models are in basic agreement on this issue.  There is no dispute between us.  [I hate to disappoint you.]

What you failed to take into account (since you refuse to educate yourself via my paper) is the 'supreme piece(s) enhancement' within my model.  My published start-of-the-game relative piece values are not the final word for a simplistic model.  My model is more sophisticated and adaptable with some adjustments required during the game.

For CRC, the 3 most powerful pieces in the game (i.e., archbishop, 
chancellor, queen) share, by a weighted formula, a 12.5% bonus which
contributes to 'practical attack values' (a component of material values 
under my model).  Moreover, the shares for each piece of the 12.5% bonus 
typically increase, by a weighted formula, during the game as some of the 
3 most powerful pieces are captured and their share(s) is inherited by the
remaining piece(s).  Thus, if the archbishop becomes the only remaining, 
most powerful piece, then it becomes much more valuable than the 
combined values of the bishop and knight.

Notwithstanding, I'll bet you still think my model is 'worthless nonsense'.
Right?

In the future, please do the minimal fact finding prerequisite to making 
sense in what you are arguing about?
____________________________________

'... the rest of the World beware that your theory of piece values 
sucks in the extreme!'

No, it does not.  Your self-described 'far less than a theory, only an 
observation' comes close, though.