If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Tweet
Comment