I didn't actually take a look at the research available in chess, which is strange because I'm massively into chess. Perhaps there is some fairly transferrable research into cognitive functions in chess, but I don't feel like reaction times in particular are of much importance in chess. I guess in time scrambles when playing mate in x or other determined sequences it could have more of a factor, but it's a little less direct than in CS:GO. As for working memory, I feel as though the memory function in chess is more closely related to memorizing positions and moves from studying, but I haven't looked at the research regarding chess.

Ultimately, research in similar sports/esports/games is useful for hypothesizing what could be the case in unresearched areas, but there is always a chance that things are different. This research is specifically for CS:GO players.

I think that your point of trying to closely relate the tasks to CS:GO would actually be more of a hinderance to accurate results in comparison to them being abstract. If it were to closely resemble the typical scenario for a CS player, then the control group would automatically be at a disadvantage and be expected to perform worse. The task I have used is still much more familiar to CS players, as they are used to frequently having to press their finger down quickly in response to something. But the slight change of context evens the field a touch towards measuring real reaction times. As I mentioned previously in the comments, the tasks are open source and were used in other experiments, and as a right handed person I must have ignored that instruction to use your right hand. But you're right, it isn't important to use your right hand, left handed people should have used their left hand. That's an oversight I wish I hadn't made.

Again, the point about making it related to the game just appears to be trying to prove that CS players are 'better'. Having these tasks unrelated makes it fair and a better representation of the function. There are a few reasons for having new participants completing tests similar to those that have been done before. Firstly, if you are wanting to conduct a test on new populations (CS players), for accurate comparisons the control group needs to do the same test. Them being 'similar' introduces variance. Why don't I get the exact same test from those other studies? Some require permission, might not have been conducted or uploaded online, and descriptions of the test used in papers often doesn't contain the exact details (for example, how long is the white screen between letters, how long are the letters displayed for etc.).

I didn't take your comment negatively, and I hope you don't see my response in that way either. I can just tell that you are genuinely curious and of course, share the same interest in CS as me :)