Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the point the parent poster makes and completely and utterly misses the point.
He is arguing that "percentage of winning" is not linearly related to "pawn or equivalent advantage". That has got nothing to do with whether those pawns are physical ones or positional advantages that have equivalent value.
He is arguing that "percentage of winning" is not linearly related to "pawn or equivalent advantage". That has got nothing to do with whether those pawns are physical ones or positional advantages that have equivalent value.