Air pollution & chess playing ability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Air pollution & chess playing ability

    I came across the following paper on the effects of air pollution on chess playing ability.

    http://conference.iza.org/conference...ios_j24419.pdf

    Basically, they measured the air pollution and other stuff during a tournament and using a chess engine for evaluation, correlated that against the quality of the chess moves.

  • #2
    So going for a walk outside between rounds may help for the opening moves. Should we head outside every 10 moves? Have a tank of oxygen by our board? I've heard that some casinos/hotels pump in oxygen; Book them as playing sites.

    Now what about the negative effect of fluorescent lighting? Does a playing hall with windows have higher quality games in the daytime?

    And does green boards get better games than brown or blue ones?

    Get writing those grant proposals.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
      I came across the following paper on the effects of air pollution on chess playing ability.

      http://conference.iza.org/conference...ios_j24419.pdf

      Basically, they measured the air pollution and other stuff during a tournament and using a chess engine for evaluation, correlated that against the quality of the chess moves.
      Thank you Roger for posting that. Working through it now for its methdology, etc.

      For those in a rush, the main finding is:
      "The results consistently indicate pollution harms the players’ performance in cognitive tasks, whereas we find no effects for temperature and CO2 concentration."
      I find the "no effects" findings at least as interesting.

      Comment


      • #4
        So I asked a scientist who has published work, and here's his review of this:

        "There are some statistical issues: They don't account for the fact their data come from the same 100 people making many moves, rather than a few thousand independent people each making one move. And they test three outcomes (temp, CO2, particulate matter), which increases the probability of getting a 'statistically significant' result just due to random variability alone.

        And methodologically: It appears at first glance that they have lots of data — thousands of moves, made by dozens of players! — but really their question is about how daily population variability relates to chess-performance, and they only have data from 14 days (seven rounds x 2 years). So, really, they have 14 data points. That's not a lot.

        Having said that: It seems fine, to be honest. I wouldn't hold this up as a paragon of analytic rigor or methodological awesomeness, but it's a reasonable study with reasonable results, in line with the previous work that they review in the paper."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
          So I asked a scientist who has published work, and here's his review of this:

          "There are some statistical issues: They don't account for the fact their data come from the same 100 people making many moves, rather than a few thousand independent people each making one move. And they test three outcomes (temp, CO2, particulate matter), which increases the probability of getting a 'statistically significant' result just due to random variability alone.

          And methodologically: It appears at first glance that they have lots of data — thousands of moves, made by dozens of players! — but really their question is about how daily population variability relates to chess-performance, and they only have data from 14 days (seven rounds x 2 years). So, really, they have 14 data points. That's not a lot.

          Having said that: It seems fine, to be honest. I wouldn't hold this up as a paragon of analytic rigor or methodological awesomeness, but it's a reasonable study with reasonable results, in line with the previous work that they review in the paper."
          well, my take, for what it's worth, is that it's a study and you should never take one study as being the truth on anything. I don't take your friend's data criticisms too seriously, not because they aren't right, but because the study authors have to content themselves with analyzing the data they have not some idealized set of data. The criticism is valid but all it means is that you shouldn't take the study results as gospel.

          The more interesting point from my perspective, is that the state of chess engines allows an indirect measurement of cognitive brain capability which is otherwise hard. For those of us past a certain age, our chess strength is declining with the inference that our mental acuity is also declining although the latter may not be readily apparent in day to day life.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post

            well, my take, for what it's worth, is that it's a study and you should never take one study as being the truth on anything. I don't take your friend's data criticisms too seriously, not because they aren't right, but because the study authors have to content themselves with analyzing the data they have not some idealized set of data. The criticism is valid but all it means is that you shouldn't take the study results as gospel.

            The more interesting point from my perspective, is that the state of chess engines allows an indirect measurement of cognitive brain capability which is otherwise hard. For those of us past a certain age, our chess strength is declining with the inference that our mental acuity is also declining although the latter may not be readily apparent in day to day life.
            Agreed on all your points. I just thought some people would find those comments interesting.

            Comment


            • #7
              Of course - the study was written well after the "smoking era" in tournaments had ended. It would be interesting to have done analysis in a big room full of smokers - often blowing smoke in your face.

              Comment


              • #8
                One time a fellow said to me the Hockey pucks in the urinal messed up his game.He couldn't concentrate.I've heard it all.Go out and have a smoke Man.

                Comment

                Working...
                X