not done reading. but something popped up about quality of play (assuming some engine notion of accuracy as in lichess, error bins are based, that there is only one reference level best move by engine) depending on the opponent strength as measure by their cumulative rating estimate. While without such accuracy measure we would naturally agree with that, this might mean something about same band rating notion of quality of play. Is it about the oppoennet serving more accurate positions that demand a more accurate reply, which is possible. My questin is whether that does not point at something about quality of play having some relative aspect to it. I am thinkin about learning theory that could be adjustable and have refined measures instead of the saturated amplitude that comes from referring always to the ceiling. I might have been narrow minded in interpreting "quality" of play here. this was just an idea.
I definitely think that quality of play depends a lot on the opponent. One obvious example is Carlsen's endings since he wins so many equal positions where he can pose problems and his opponents start playing non-optimal moves.
It would be interesting to attempt to take the opponent rating into account. This might be an idea for a future project.
Your page is such a great find just before the match. Thank you! Would love to see some more data dives on both players.
not done reading. but something popped up about quality of play (assuming some engine notion of accuracy as in lichess, error bins are based, that there is only one reference level best move by engine) depending on the opponent strength as measure by their cumulative rating estimate. While without such accuracy measure we would naturally agree with that, this might mean something about same band rating notion of quality of play. Is it about the oppoennet serving more accurate positions that demand a more accurate reply, which is possible. My questin is whether that does not point at something about quality of play having some relative aspect to it. I am thinkin about learning theory that could be adjustable and have refined measures instead of the saturated amplitude that comes from referring always to the ceiling. I might have been narrow minded in interpreting "quality" of play here. this was just an idea.
I definitely think that quality of play depends a lot on the opponent. One obvious example is Carlsen's endings since he wins so many equal positions where he can pose problems and his opponents start playing non-optimal moves.
It would be interesting to attempt to take the opponent rating into account. This might be an idea for a future project.