New blog:
lichess.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-a-g-factor-for-chess-a-psychometric-scale-for-playing-ability/tTXWy9oV
lichess.org/forum/community-blog-discussions/ublog-tTXWy9oV
The first part is skillful parsimonious journey over what is omnipresent but not getting bogged into details.
Which I did on my own, but moved that tangent about rating, which I only care about because there are in my face everywhere, by now, and sharing other chess things might need such understanding, but so not my modelling interest, it is maximal bootstrap pull yourself measure, and my pet topic is about board aware (or more) measures, coverage of wilderness, for generalization skill consideration (which now is undefined, and not even explicit part of theories of learning, apparently), i.e. the game board information (or sport specifics) matter to me for interesting metrics about more than tournament or ranking objective. I care more about skill sets, and board characteristics in relation to each other, no matter how good or bad anyone might be at the total of them. .The mystery is in that pounding. the big chess is there for me. both for my own playing or staged playing understanding, and my understanding of own learning, and others learning as well, there it might not only be about chess.. but if not it is in both directions (other stuff lighting chess, and chess lighting other stuff).
GBT is keyword for the thread containing my difficulties of understanding (about what is ELO really). But GBT as I said above, is about not really looking at chess at all, at least not the board information. only the ternary outcome value. could be any sport.
psychometrics might be a keyword here.. (if I grep something). seeking public pdf links. or other things related, might be more recent papers heavily influenced (and also giving another angle, across research projects later).
lichess.org/@/ndpatzer/blog/science-of-chess-a-g-factor-for-chess-a-psychometric-scale-for-playing-ability/tTXWy9oV
lichess.org/forum/community-blog-discussions/ublog-tTXWy9oV
The first part is skillful parsimonious journey over what is omnipresent but not getting bogged into details.
Which I did on my own, but moved that tangent about rating, which I only care about because there are in my face everywhere, by now, and sharing other chess things might need such understanding, but so not my modelling interest, it is maximal bootstrap pull yourself measure, and my pet topic is about board aware (or more) measures, coverage of wilderness, for generalization skill consideration (which now is undefined, and not even explicit part of theories of learning, apparently), i.e. the game board information (or sport specifics) matter to me for interesting metrics about more than tournament or ranking objective. I care more about skill sets, and board characteristics in relation to each other, no matter how good or bad anyone might be at the total of them. .The mystery is in that pounding. the big chess is there for me. both for my own playing or staged playing understanding, and my understanding of own learning, and others learning as well, there it might not only be about chess.. but if not it is in both directions (other stuff lighting chess, and chess lighting other stuff).
GBT is keyword for the thread containing my difficulties of understanding (about what is ELO really). But GBT as I said above, is about not really looking at chess at all, at least not the board information. only the ternary outcome value. could be any sport.
psychometrics might be a keyword here.. (if I grep something). seeking public pdf links. or other things related, might be more recent papers heavily influenced (and also giving another angle, across research projects later).