IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mar/magkse/201019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Chess players' performance beyond 64 squares: A case study on the limitations of cognitive abilities transfer

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Bühren

    (University of Kassel)

  • Björn Frank

    (University of Kassel)

Abstract

In a beauty contest experiment with over 6,000 chess players, ranked from amateur to world class, we found that Grandmasters act very similar to other humans. This even holds true when they play exclusively against players of approximately their own strength. In line with psychological research on chess players' thinking, we argue that they are not more rational in a game theoretic sense per se. Their skills are rather specific for their game.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Bühren & Björn Frank, 2010. "Chess players' performance beyond 64 squares: A case study on the limitations of cognitive abilities transfer," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201019, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    • Handle: RePEc:mar:magkse:201019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uni-marburg.de/en/fb02/research-groups/economics/macroeconomics/research/magks-joint-discussion-papers-in-economics/papers/2010-papers/19-2010_buhren.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & José G. Montalvo & Rosemarie Nagel & Albert Satorra, 2002. "One, Two, (Three), Infinity, ...: Newspaper and Lab Beauty-Contest Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1687-1701, December.
    2. Christoph Bühren & Björn Frank & Rosemarie Nagel, 2012. "A Historical Note on the Beauty Contest," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201211, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    3. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2008. "Experientia Docet: Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(1), pages 71-115, January.
    4. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2009. "Field Centipedes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1619-1635, September.
    5. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2001. "Professionals Play Minimax," Working Papers 2001-17, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    6. Burnham, Terence C. & Cesarini, David & Johannesson, Magnus & Lichtenstein, Paul & Wallace, Björn, 2009. "Higher cognitive ability is associated with lower entries in a p-beauty contest," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 171-175, October.
    7. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2003. "Professionals Play Minimax," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 395-415.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agranov, Marina & Potamites, Elizabeth & Schotter, Andrew & Tergiman, Chloe, 2012. "Beliefs and endogenous cognitive levels: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 449-463.
    2. Giovanni Sala & Alessandra Gorini & Gabriella Pravettoni, 2015. "Mathematical Problem-Solving Abilities and Chess," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440155, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuval Salant & Jörg L. Spenkuch, 2021. "Complexity and Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 9239, CESifo.
    2. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2014. "Backward Induction in the Wild: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," MPRA Paper 58766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Hendrik Sonnabend, 2018. "Further Field Evidence for Minimax Play," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(3), pages 371-388, April.
    4. Duffy, Sean & Naddeo, JJ & Owens, David & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and mixed strategies: On brains and minimax," MPRA Paper 71878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Etan A. Green & Justin M. Rao & David Rothschild, 2019. "A Sharp Test of the Portability of Expertise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2820-2831, June.
    6. Becker, Gary S. & Rubinstein, Yona, 2011. "Fear and the response to terrorism: an economic analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121740, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Kocher, Martin G. & Lenz, Marc V. & Sutter, Matthias, 2010. "Psychological Pressure in Competitive Environments: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment: Comment," IZA Discussion Papers 4846, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Emara, Noha & Owens, David & Smith, John & Wilmer, Lisa, 2017. "Serial correlation in National Football League play calling and its effects on outcomes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 125-132.
    9. Van Essen, Matt & Wooders, John, 2015. "Blind stealing: Experience and expertise in a mixed-strategy poker experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 186-206.
    10. Fabrizio Germano & Peio Zuazo-Garin, 2017. "Bounded rationality and correlated equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(3), pages 595-629, August.
    11. Cason, Timothy N. & Friedman, Daniel & Hopkins, Ed, 2010. "Testing the TASP: An experimental investigation of learning in games with unstable equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2309-2331, November.
    12. Heifetz, Aviad & Heller, Ruth & Ostreiher, Roni, 2021. "Do Arabian babblers play mixed strategies in a “volunteer’s dilemma”?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & David H. Reiley, 2010. "What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Exploring Whether Professionals Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1413-1434, July.
    14. Kenneth Kovash & Steven D. Levitt, 2009. "Professionals Do Not Play Minimax: Evidence from Major League Baseball and the National Football League," NBER Working Papers 15347, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Alexander Cotte Poveda, Julian Gutierrez López, 2016. "Incertidumbre y riesgo en los cobros desde el punto penal: un análisis aplicando la teoría de juegos," Revista CIFE, Universidad Santo Tomás, March.
    16. Spiliopoulos, Leonidas, 2013. "Beyond fictitious play beliefs: Incorporating pattern recognition and similarity matching," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 69-85.
    17. Virtue Ekhosuehi, 2018. "On the one-shot two-person zero-sum game in football from a penalty kicker’s perspective," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(3), pages 17-27.
    18. Antonio Cabrales & José-Ramón Uriarte, 2013. "Doubts and equilibria," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 783-810, September.
    19. Yoshitaka Okano, 2016. "Re-examination of team’s play in a mixed-strategy game experiment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 601-604, May.
    20. Cabrales, Antonio & Uriarte Ayo, José Ramón, 2008. "Doubts and Equilibria," IKERLANAK 2008-31, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    chess; beauty contest; cognitive transfer;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mar:magkse:201019. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bernd Hayo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vamarde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.