Is this something that editorial staff really feel should be done for a well-completed Rules Page (say done in the Notes Section)?
In my latest batch of games I've put up for Review I've left them out (I may insert later, after possible publication). That is because Dr. Muller is currently on editorial staff, and he often vehemently disagrees with certain Piece Values I might give. In spite of my continued doubts about certain aspects of computer studies, for example. Ultimately justified in the course of time or not.
As a result I do not feel I have full freedom to offer piece values (at least for the sake of my peace of mind), even though most people know to take anyone's offered Piece Values with a grain of salt. What should be done? Assume H.G.'s values are infallible, and wait for the next study of his if he has yet to offer piece values for 12x12 boards with given armies, for example?
Many people may be content not to offer piece values, simply because they want to keep their own a secret, as it may affect their chances when playing a given CV (or because it may take a lot of calculations, they may feel). Personally, I don't think it matters too often that way.
One possibility I thought of today is perhaps to have a separate section added (to rules pages!?) for just piece values offered, if any. Another idea is to rate separately someone's offered piece values. The truth is not a democracy, you might say? Well governments sometimes consult experts on matters, but go ahead and put them up for vote in democracies, anyway. Even life and death matters, such as euthanasia and abortion, as we have seen in places around the world. Short of divine intervention/retribution, perhaps, such decisions by democracies are final, subject to future governments or changes of constitutions.
Re: Including Piece Values on Rules Pages:
Is this something that editorial staff really feel should be done for a well-completed Rules Page (say done in the Notes Section)?
In my latest batch of games I've put up for Review I've left them out (I may insert later, after possible publication). That is because Dr. Muller is currently on editorial staff, and he often vehemently disagrees with certain Piece Values I might give. In spite of my continued doubts about certain aspects of computer studies, for example. Ultimately justified in the course of time or not.
As a result I do not feel I have full freedom to offer piece values (at least for the sake of my peace of mind), even though most people know to take anyone's offered Piece Values with a grain of salt. What should be done? Assume H.G.'s values are infallible, and wait for the next study of his if he has yet to offer piece values for 12x12 boards with given armies, for example?
Many people may be content not to offer piece values, simply because they want to keep their own a secret, as it may affect their chances when playing a given CV (or because it may take a lot of calculations, they may feel). Personally, I don't think it matters too often that way.
One possibility I thought of today is perhaps to have a separate section added (to rules pages!?) for just piece values offered, if any. Another idea is to rate separately someone's offered piece values. The truth is not a democracy, you might say? Well governments sometimes consult experts on matters, but go ahead and put them up for vote in democracies, anyway. Even life and death matters, such as euthanasia and abortion, as we have seen in places around the world. Short of divine intervention/retribution, perhaps, such decisions by democracies are final, subject to future governments or changes of constitutions.