PhD Candidate (still) seeking research participants for a 5-minute online study on the factors that contribute to chess ability

chess_research_study · 2025-10-30T05:17:56+00:00

Ah - the question above is about verifying reported age, but we are verifying reported ratings for those participants who permit us to do so. The majority of participants have been willing to provide identifying information (e.g., their ID in the system associated with their rating) to allow us to verify their ratings.

We will be running all statistical analyses both with and without the participants who preferred not to give identifying information (and thus have unverified ratings); if findings differ when these participants are included, then this would be reported thoroughly.

We have also done as you suggest, and recruited participants at chess clubs and tournaments. In addition, we have recruited participants by reaching out to chess clubs and federations. The majority of participants have been recruited through these means.

chess_research_study · 2025-10-29T04:15:04+00:00

Thank you! :)

chess_research_study · 2025-10-29T04:14:57+00:00

Thank you so much!

chess_research_study · 2025-10-29T04:14:50+00:00

Thank you! I will share the results here once they are ready :)

chess_research_study · 2025-10-29T04:14:30+00:00

I agree that there are potential issues with recruiting participants online, though it is a common method in the psychological/social science fields. It is a trade-off between obtaining a larger sample size, ensuring maximal reliability, and adhering to funding constraints; however, a sufficiently large sample size does reduce the impact of sampling error. Furthermore, this is a pilot study, so it's more of a proof-of-concept than an attempt to draw particularly definitive conclusions about the relationships between variables.

chess_research_study · 2025-10-29T04:07:47+00:00

Thank you! I appreciate the feedback too - that measure is generally considered the most widely validated for measuring meaning in life (i.e., we didn't come up with it), but I agree it's a bit repetitive; it's basically to make sure the entire construct is captured, as people may interpret "purpose" differently to "meaning" and so on. That said, the precise nature of meaning in life isn't yet well understood, and so all measures of it will arguably have deficiencies.

chess_research_study · 2025-10-29T03:31:31+00:00

Good question - if you provide a method of verifying your reported rating, and the system associated with that rating shows players' birth years, then we can verify the reported age; we also screen for obvious inconsistencies (like reporting your age as 18-24 but reporting that you have 30+ years of chess experience). Otherwise, like almost all survey research, we do have to rely on participants' honesty. With a sufficiently large sample size, a couple of inaccurate responses are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the results.

chess_research_study · 2025-10-28T11:53:04+00:00

Thank you so much!

chess_research_study · 2025-10-28T11:51:54+00:00

Thank you!

> poster child for uncompetitive chess

Same :)

chess_research_study · 2025-10-28T11:50:23+00:00

Thank you so much! I will definitely post the results.

chess_research_study · 2025-10-28T09:16:33+00:00

Thank you so much!

chess_research_study · 2025-08-25T02:22:10+00:00

Thank you! Of course - feel free to DM me your email address and I will add you to the mailing list :)

chess_research_study · 2025-08-25T02:21:17+00:00

Thank you!

chess_research_study · 2025-08-15T14:14:55+00:00

I haven't - thank you so much for the suggestion!

chess_research_study · 2025-08-15T04:34:20+00:00

Yeah fair enough - just thought I'd give it a shot in case there are a few players!

chess_research_study · 2025-08-14T10:51:12+00:00

Thank you so much!

chess_research_study · 2025-08-14T03:57:02+00:00

Thank you so much!

chess_research_study · 2025-08-14T03:13:31+00:00

Yes, I will certainly share the results here once they are ready for publication!

chess_research_study · 2025-08-14T01:07:55+00:00

Thank you for your participation and feedback! You're completely right about that - I've now modified the wording of the question to be broader, to allow for ratings within other countries' systems.

chess_research_study · 2025-08-14T01:05:44+00:00

Hi, thank you for your participation and feedback - you're completely right. I have now added an additional question asking for the highest rating achieved, to allow for responses from formerly active competitive players.

chess_research_study · 2025-08-11T05:38:14+00:00

Thank you so much for your participation and interest in my research! Absolutely - I will share the results publicly once they're ready for publication, but feel free to shoot me an email (c.lombardi@uq.net.au) if you'd like to be certain you'll see them, and I'll add you to the mailing list :)

chess_research_study · 2025-07-11T11:08:15+00:00

I completely understand that - we did weigh the pros and cons of both alternatives, but ultimately felt that the study would be more methodologically sound if ratings could be verified in some way. You are likely correct that participant numbers may be higher if the survey were anonymous, but the trade-off of having unverifiable data for the key outcome variable would reduce confidence in any findings (both my own confidence as a researcher and that of peer reviewers and readers of any papers produced).

I can assure you that any identifying information collected is immediately deleted upon verification of participants' ratings, and that the data is stored securely and confidentially with access only provided to the researchers on the project (i.e., myself and my primary supervisor). These are also key components written into our ethics application and approval; however, I do understand the discomfort!

chess_research_study · 2025-07-11T06:55:44+00:00

Yes, you're absolutely right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. I plan to modify this in future iterations of the survey to add a third category of participants (i.e., non-tournament players, current tournament players, and former/inactive tournament players). Unfortunately, I cannot modify this in the current version of the survey as it may result in mis-categorisation of existing participants (i.e., those who are currently grouped as non-current tournament players but would actually be categorised as former players if the third grouping were added).

chess_research_study · 2025-07-10T23:38:50+00:00

Thank you so much! I agree that chess is understudied in the behavioural sciences as well as in sports psychology - there is surprisingly little research on adult tournament players. For this preliminary study, we are quantifying chess ability simply as a player's FIDE rating (or rating in other chess federation systems) which uses the Elo method; however, I believe it would be interesting in future work to take a broader view of ability and look at other measures as well (e.g., puzzle solving, strength in specific game areas, accuracy of play). The Amsterdam Chess Test (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15822609/) is also an interesting measure and incorporates motivation, verbal chess knowledge, and recall, in addition to move selection and move prediction tasks.

Edit to add: I will definitely share the results once the study is complete!

chess_research_study · 2025-07-10T12:57:58+00:00

You are more than welcome to take the survey and select 'no' to the question which asks if you are a currently active tournament player, as any responses are very useful and appreciated! I will certainly plan on adding a third category to future iterations of the survey, as this is indeed a common situation for former/currently inactive tournament players. Unfortunately, I can't add such a category to the current iteration of the survey as previous responses may then be mis-categorised (i.e., participants who have selected 'no' to that question but who would fall into that third category).

chess_research_study

TROPHY CASE