@justme23 said in #19:
> Exactly what is the point?
Well, the series started with the using the whole database with some assumptions about players having some control over which opening they tend to venture in, and moreover that they would tend to mainly stay within familiar terroritory (or if exploring would explore not far from there). familiary, far and control/preference being undefined mostly (but I would not scream to heresy on those, just that we don't yet have external measure or calibration of what those might be, yet we might all agree to existence of such notions, as preference, familiarity and distance (or similarity) between opening choices.
So, what is the input here and what is the output.. I would not say those assumptions are hypotheses.. They are likely givens. Another given is the database. Skipping over the graph methogology logic, assuming the figures at then end are directly showing what the data contains (and I think so, even if I don't get the part that is pure visualization completely, perhaps my task to understand better). So it would be saying that on such graphs linking opening IDs, proximity or strong linkage of such IDS, would be indicative of something chessy about them, via the player having had some say in how they play from their hard repertoire specialization work ovrer time.
so there might be the other undefined of opening family, usually based on prefix more than board features, although one would expect some relations.. yet... But assuming some sets of grouping of opening IDS, then it seems that it generates hypothesis of board similarity...
whatever makes people able to venture outside their mainline.. of priori studies.. is it that the seqeunce of moves is something that they are able to generalize, or is it what is on the board that allow them to improvise maybe, use their on-board chess abilities or experience to test new moves.. But in anycase, I would think the flow of knowledge wheel here would be to discuss further what associations are proposed.
I thinking it would be about those we would not expect maybe to be together? Those that ECO does not group with each other, for example, because they do not have same seqeunce prefix to whatever makes the opening IDs.
I do thing the blog is actually discussing the floating variables, however the angle of "limitations" is maybe what makes some confusion about where this might have been going.
Perhaps fear of being bold. But the logic is there. Maybe one assumption is missing.. That chess might be bigger that we tend to think? That having names for openings and ECO rows and columns of them seems to be knowledge enough? The 2 soft sport to further discuss are opening ID grouping based on chess board considerations, possibly beyond prefix branch dictacting children branch group membership.
The other is what is in "preference" familiiarity and exploration from familiatiryt..
But those are not limitations, they are about interpreting new information not obtainable from just looking a single game instances.. what can I say? sure, there is a wheel.. why this is not fast food techonology to go win some game.
It might make for more conscious exploration study if one has been feeling bored in sticking to some repertoire for too long, they might start to learn other lines that might be considered to be related (=similar, equal different but familiar?), but that they would not have know yet.. Look for those that ECO would not put in same philogeny.
