Single Comment

'So the ply depth depends only logarithmically on search time,
which is VERY WEAKLY.

So if you had wanted to show any understanding of the matter at hand, you
should have written RIGHT! instead of WRONG! above it...'
______________________________________________________

'... it is well known and amply tested that the quality of computer play only is a very weak function of time control.'
____________________________________

I disagreed with your previous remark only because it was misleadingly,
poorly expressed.  You made it sound as if you barely realized at all that
the quality of computer play is a function of search time.  Obviously, you do.  So, here is the correction you demand and deserve ....

RIGHT!
_______

'Absolute nonsense. Most Capablanca Chess games are won by annihilation of
the opponents Piece army, after which the winning side can easily push as
many Pawns to promotion as he needs to perform a quick mate.
Closely-matched end-games are relatively rare, and mating power almost
plays no role at all. As long as the Pawns can promote to pieces with
mating power, like Queens.'

Very well.  I spoke incorrectly when I creditted you with foolishly assigning the archbishop nearly equal value to the chancellor due mainly to its decent mating power, relevant mainly in endgames ... sometimes.
You are even more foolish than that.  You actually think the archbishop 
has nearly equal value to the chancellor throughout the game- in the opening game and mid-game as well.  Wow!

By the way, please add IM Larry Kaufmann to your dubious list of 
'insufferably stupid people' who disagree with your relative piece values
in CRC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Chess
___________________________________________________

'... But let's cut the beating around the bush ...'

Good idea!

I have now completely run out of patience with your endless inept, 
amateurish attempts to discredit my work.  Not because you disagree.
Not even because you are unnecessarily rude and disrespectful.  Instead, 
strictly because you have NOT done your homework!  You refuse to 
read the same 58-page paper you are confidently grading with an 'F'.  

Consequently, virtually all of your criticisms to date about my model 
for calculating relative piece values have been incorrect, irrelevant
and/or irrational.  When/If you ever address concerns about my method
that I can identify as making sense and knowing at least what you are
talking about, then I will politely answer them.  Until then, my side of 
this conversation is closed.