Attention All Chessnuts:
Please, everyone just shift your dicussion into @Blakes thread on "Dynamic Scoring," and we would (finally) be done with this ridiculous thread.
And @Blake would be in heaven.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/dynamic-scoring
Just a thought.
A problem I see with arguments above, on both sides, is the referencing of inferior/superior players, their play, and whether the rules allow for help/hurt in imbalanced-ability situations (which are most!) and their aesthetic value subsequently born out by play effected by said rule. I cannot stress this enough, so I'm going all caps for just a moment here: THE RULES/LAWS DON'T EVER KNOW THERE IS AN IMBALANCE IN ABILITY, NOR SHOULD THEY. All good and proper laws and rules *take no favor* for the parties concerned; they provide *equity* for the two players/parties. And they most certainly aren't about preserving any perceived aesthetic value due to either the ability imbalance or the rule that removes equity from the players, as I & others postulate it does in fact do.
You've misinterpreted the discussion. It was never about the ability of players. By "superior" and "inferior," we were referring to who stood better in a given position. For example, white is down two pawns without any compensation. In this case, black is the "superior" side and white is the "inferior." From a practical sense, white doesn't have have winning chances, though he may have drawing chances depending on what material is left on the board. It may have been a bit confusing because Monster used the term "stronger" and "weaker," but it wasn't about the chess playing ability of either side.