Assessing Human Error Against a Benchmark of Perfection — mentioned by fundingshovel

Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:28:05 GMT

It's poorly written press coverage of https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04956 tl;dr We find strong evidence that in our domain, features describing the inherent difficulty of an instance are significantly more powerful than features based on skill or time.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Assessing Human Error Against a Benchmark of Perfection — mentioned by Noseshine

Tue, 05 Jul 2016 05:06:26 GMT

TL;DR quote: > The bottom line is that the difficulty of the decision is the most important factor in determining whether a player makes a mistake. In other words, examining the complexity of the board position is a much better predictor of whether a player is likely to blunder than his or her skill level or the amount of time left in the game. That first sentence almost comically funny, especially in the context of the click-bait headline that does a great job at not revealing any useful information. All based on playing chess, so go ahead if you like and use one experiment using one game to…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Assessing Human Error Against a Benchmark of Perfection · HackerPapers discussions

Assessing Human Error Against a Benchmark of Perfection — mentioned by fundingshovel

Assessing Human Error Against a Benchmark of Perfection — mentioned by Noseshine