Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Psychology: Importance of tactical, positional and general chess knowledge

Reference: Holding, D. H. (1985). The psychology of chess skill. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
_______________________________
-
The book cited above is not a chess book per se; rather, it discusses different psychological aspects of the chess player, such as his cognitive abilities.
-
According to one study, the main things a chess player should work on is his tactical abilities, as well as his positional judgement. Pfau (1983, cited in Holding, 1985) administered tests to nearly 60 chess players. There was a 75-item multiple-choice test, which covered the different areas of a chess game, namely the opening, the middlegame and the endgame. For instance, Holding (1985) cite the following question that was used by Pfau (1983): The Staunton Gambit is employed by [white] in the [Dutch Defense]. Seventy-four other questions were thus used.
-
The participants were also given a series of diagrams of gamelike situations, and were asked to find the best moves. Some of these diagrams were aimed at testing the tactical level of the player, while the rest of the diagrams were aimed at testing positional judgement.
-
Results. There was a very strong positive correlation between tactical skill and rating (.76); between positional judgement and rating (.72); and between results at the knowledge test and rating (.69). There was also a moderate/strong positive correlation between memory for positions and rating (.44), but that's nothing compared to the enormous correlation observed in the first three mentioned cases.
-
Note that the correlation between the knowledge test and the participants' Elo ratings was observed both for general chessic questions in the questionnaire, as well as for specific questions (regarding openings, the middlegame and endgames).
-
Also note that there was a small insignificant correlation between time spent studying and rating (.10). This suggests that what is learnt is much more important than how much time you spend studying it. In other words, learning techniques used by the players while studying is of major importance. This could also suggest that those who learn fast could be at advantage here.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Psychology: are men better at chess than women?

The question as whether men are innately better at chess than women is controversial. At least, this idea is widespread, to the point where it has become a stereotype : men are better at chess than women.

An interesting article that stresses this point is the one by Anne Maass et al., who conducted a study in Italy. I will discuss this study further, but before entering the subject, here is the reference for those who are interested in reading the full article :
Maass, A., D’Ettole, C., & Cadinu, M. (2008). Checkmate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 231-245.

Women chess players represent less than 5% of all tournament players worldwide. Added to that underrepresentation of women is their underperformance: they are only 1% of all grandmasters. It is easy to say that men are more interested in chess for one, and better at it for two. The aforementioned study tends to go in the other direction.

The goal of Maass et al. was to investigate the role of the widespread stereotype (men are better than women at chess) in the women’s underperformance. It seems that it’s the first time researchers investigate another venue than cognitive differences to explain the better performance of men in chess.

First, the authors lead a pilot study in order to verify that the stereotype is indeed widespread. They found that the participants of the pilot study did think that men were innately better at chess than women. They also found that the participants thought other players too had the idea that men are superior to their female colleagues.

In the study, Maass et al. explicitely tested the impact of the activation (mention) of the stereotype before a game. They also checked for the importance of cognitive differences in the results obtained (for instance, it is well established that men score better in mental imagery and mental rotation, so they wanted to check if these cognitive differences could explain more the difference of results than the mention of the stereotype would).

The experiment. The study was conducted via Internet. Fourty-two male participants and 42 female participants were paired according to their Elo rating for the games, i.e. each woman was paired to an equal-strength man. There was a maximum difference of 30 points between the man and woman’s ratings. All in all, this means each player was of the same strength. These pairs of players played 2 games against each other, but without knowing they were playing twice against the same opponent. They just thought it was two games against two different opponents, because the nicknames weren’t the same in both games (they were neutral-gender nicknames, so that guessing the sex of the opponent would be impossible).

There were two conditions in the experiment. In the control condition, participants were just playing two games with their paired opponent of the other sex (still without thinking it was the same opponent twice). They didn’t know whether the opponent was a male or a female, and the experimentators never mentioned anything about men being superior to women. In the experimental condition, the participants were told in the first game that they were playing against a man, whereas in the second game they were told they were playing against a woman (that order was reversed for half of the participants). Before the game, the participants in the experimental condition were told "that recent studies had shown that men earn clearly superior scores than women in chess games. The aim of this study is to provide further tests for these findings". That was the way to activate the stereotype for the participants in the experimental condition (as I said, the participants in the control condition weren’t told anything about that stereotype).

So, what were the results of the games?

First of all, women in the control condition played just like anyone else (they scored approximately 1.0/2.0). Women in the experimental condition also played as expected when they thought they were playing against another woman (1.0/2.0), but their performance dropped drastically when they thought they were playing against a man (they scored around 0.5/2.0) (see figure below, adapted from Maass et al., 2008).

-
Moreover, the authors checked for the participants' intention of playing aggressively for the win before their game. In the control condition, there was no difference between men and women as to how much they planned on playing for the win (as opposed to playing to avoid making mistakes). There was no sex difference either when the women in the experimental condition were told that they were playing against another woman. But when the women in the experimental condition were told that they were playing against a man, they planned on playing much more defensively, and effectively ended up doing so. The participants’ results in their games was positively correlated with their intent to play aggressively, so this could partly explain the women’s underperformance in chess : due to the activation of the stereotype, they play overly defensively.

Also, results suggest that men are not cognitively at advantage over women, since there was no significant correlation between mental rotation or imagery capacity, and results in the games.

Moreover, despite the women knowing they had the same Elo rating as their opponent, they showed a lower chess-specific self-esteem, which too was positively correlated with the results in the games. This lower self-esteem is most likely at least partly due to the knowledge of the stereotype : this could also explain the underperformance of women in chess.

It is to note that women score higher on individual tests evaluating chessic abilities than they do in tournaments, whereas it is NOT the case for men (in their case, both scores match). It is very plausible to believe, given all this data, that women would score just as much as men in chess tournaments would it not be for the existence of the pervasive – and false – stereotype that leads people to believe (women included) that men are better than women at chess.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Be back around May 20

You may have noticed that I have stopped posting for a while now. I have been overly busy with university, given that it's the end of the semester, and that it ends on May 20; until then, I probably won't be posting much. I have not given up this project altogether though, but I had to set priorities somewhere and university won them all :) I will start posting again after the end of this semester.

Take care of yourselves until then!