Derek Nalls wrote on Fri, Jul 11, 2008 06:58 PM UTC:
I appreciate the 3 versions of SMIRF loaded with different CRC material
values that you sent me for testing purposes. I realize compiling them
was not a productive use of your time toward developing Octopus or
creating future versions of SMIRF. So, I sincerely hate to complain.
Internal Playtesting- Scharnagl
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/pass
Push the 'download now' button.
I played one game of Embassy Chess (mirror) at 40 minutes per move. The
white player was version 0 (standard) and the black player was version 2
(highest archbishop value). The black player won. However, the victory
was not attributable to the white player valuing its archbishop too low in
an exchange. Instead, it was attributable to the white player valuing its
queen too low in an exchange.
White traded its 1 queen for 1 knight + 1 rook belonging to black. This
gave black a 3:2 advantage in supreme pieces which, over the course of the
game, was reduced to a 1:0 advantage in supreme pieces which gave black the
ability to out-position white in the endgame, gain material and win.
The game was not even close or long ... ending in 53 moves. I have seen
this happen many times before. Of course, with version 0 and version 2
having identical material values for the queen, rook and knight, it could
have just an likely 'thrown the game away' to the other player. That is
the reason I cannot continue playtesting with what you provided to me.
Under the Nalls model (for example), there are 3 supreme piece(s)
enhancements: the non color-bound enhancement, the non color-changed
enhancement and the compound enhancement. In CRC, they total a 43.75%
bonus for the archbishop above the material value of its components (the
bishop and the knight), a 12.50% bonus for the chancellor above the
material value of its components (the rook and the knight) and a 18.75%
bonus for the queen above the material value of its components (the rook
and the bishop). The entire purpose of the supreme piece(s) enhancements
is to provide a measurably appropriate deterrent to trading any supreme
pieces too lightly to your opponent thereby ending-up with a potentially
game-losing disadvantage in the ratio of supreme pieces. The Muller model
is similar in this respect.
If I had to choose only ONE foundation, experimental or theoretical, for
my model, then I would choose experimental without apprehension. Of
course, I am allowed to use both. So, I do because I remain hopeful that
eventually, thru relentless effort, my theory will attain a worthwhile
condition (that has previously eluded it) whereby the theoretical and
experimental foundations will become mutually reinforcing.
I would characterize my position as regarding both the experimental and
theoretical foundations as important (although I definitely consider the
experimental foundation primary).
I would characterize Muller's position as being that the experimental
foundation is everything that matters and the theoretical foundation is
just an unneeded crude, inaccurate approximation to experimental numbers
decorated with arbitrary words and concepts. Maybe so?
I would characterize Scharnagl's position as being that the theoretical
foundation is supremely important as it must dictate and predict the
optimum experimental numbers. [I agree that a great theory should be
expected to do so.] Furthermore, the theory must be elegantly simple and
intuitively accessible. [I consider this expectation unrealistic and
impossible. Generally, the optimum material values for chess variants are
too complex in their estimation-calculation to be reducible to simple
formulae without sacrificing accuracy to an unacceptable extent.]
Scharnagl:
Please reconsider revising your CRC model even if doing so unavoidably
renders your theory somewhat more complicated in its concepts and
formulae? The playing strength of SMIRF (standard version) can probably
be improved significantly by taking such steps.
