This is a wholly uninsightful post. You basically said Ding made more blunders, got worse positions, lost more games, converted less games, played less sharply. In short, absolutely nothing to answer the original question of what changed. EVERYTHING changed and thus nothing changed.
The point of data analysis is to produce conclusions, distinctions, features. Meanwhile, everything in this post could be summed up by the single phrase "Ding became a worse player", including the utter lack of precision and insight. It took a blog post of a thousand words for you to convey five words; an inefficiency of 2000%. How's that for data.
@cryo-phoenix said in #11:
> This is a wholly uninsightful post. You basically said Ding made more blunders, got worse positions, lost more games, converted less games, played less sharply. In short, absolutely nothing to answer the original question of what changed. EVERYTHING changed and thus nothing changed.
>
> The point of data analysis is to produce conclusions, distinctions, features. Meanwhile, everything in this post could be summed up by the single phrase "Ding became a worse player", including the utter lack of precision and insight. It took a blog post of a thousand words for you to convey five words; an inefficiency of 2000%. How's that for data.
I don't think that everything changed, since the number of inaccuracies made has stayed roughly the same, which indicates that Ding didn't become a worse player in every situation. It looks more like he plays fine for most of his games but makes more blunders which cost him points. Also his play being less sharp wasn't clear (at least to me) from the beginning. One can also imagine a player playing worse chess because they try to go into complications but can't handle them well.
For me the point of data analysis is to quantify statements such as "Ding became a worse player". Of course, I could simply state that from the start and not bother looking at his games at all. Or I could keep all the data for myself and just say that Ding got worse. But I think it's much more insightful if I share the data I looked at and discuss the different aspects. Especially in this case since everyone knows that Ding's results got worse after his world championship match.
I agree that if you are just looking for a conclusion my posts aren't for you. As a reader, I prefer to see how conclusions were made, so I also try to write my posts in a way where everyone can make their own conclusion from the data which makes the posts longer.
even if everything changes that would still say something. just saying worst is just like retelling the outcomes results and the one dimension average point of view. good or bad. While there can be many ways to be so, and other not. but there could also be overall many dimensions that go down. that is still more informative than mere average measures. I am not sure that an analsysis has to find things that go in differrent directions. Maybe it for all players such analysis showed that all measures were always having similar slopes with time, then one might indeed consider those measure to be having a main common factor etc.. but just one trajectory, for now is possible that the person did have all those a priori not so correlated dimension going in the same direction. This is not about the particular case, I am just consdiering the argument about such an analysis not being interesting on the basis of their concordance of trends.. But I think we should look a populations that way. as trajectories. and then bundles (they might not be tight bundles with enough diverstity of such trajectories).
@Luckaskl1993 said in #7:
> Maybe the CCP took 90% of his WC money and he got depresssed because of that.
LMFAO
Not to put ideas in your head, but I'd pay serious money if you standardize this toolset and wrap it in a program so I can bulk analyze my historic games....