Well, I don't read it that way. I don't even quote a precise value, I only say "more like a Rook [than like the Bishop]". That is a pretty wide margin. Of course, the larger the margin, the more undeniable the statement. I don't think that anyone would dare to deny that an FAD or WAD has a value between that of a Pawn and a Queen, even without any study.
So yes, if computer tests show that FA is very similar in value to a Bishop, and FAD similar to a Rook, the statement that FAD is far more valuable than a Bishop seems to have a large-enough safety margin to bet your life on it. Even without computer testing it should be pretty obvious; the FA and N are very similar in mobility and forwardness, and the value of N and B are well known to be very close. Having 50% more moves should count for something, methinks. So the reason I sound very confident in that posting is not only because of computer studies, but is also based on prevailing player opinion and logic reasoning, which leads to a similar conclusion.
My objection there mainly concerned that 'thinks' could also refer to just a suspicion, and is not the correct term for describing an observation. In a sense no thinking at all goes into a computer study. You just let the computers play, and take notice of the resulting score.
Well, I don't read it that way. I don't even quote a precise value, I only say "more like a Rook [than like the Bishop]". That is a pretty wide margin. Of course, the larger the margin, the more undeniable the statement. I don't think that anyone would dare to deny that an FAD or WAD has a value between that of a Pawn and a Queen, even without any study.
So yes, if computer tests show that FA is very similar in value to a Bishop, and FAD similar to a Rook, the statement that FAD is far more valuable than a Bishop seems to have a large-enough safety margin to bet your life on it. Even without computer testing it should be pretty obvious; the FA and N are very similar in mobility and forwardness, and the value of N and B are well known to be very close. Having 50% more moves should count for something, methinks. So the reason I sound very confident in that posting is not only because of computer studies, but is also based on prevailing player opinion and logic reasoning, which leads to a similar conclusion.
My objection there mainly concerned that 'thinks' could also refer to just a suspicion, and is not the correct term for describing an observation. In a sense no thinking at all goes into a computer study. You just let the computers play, and take notice of the resulting score.