ArticleScientific reports2023
Quantifying human performance in chess.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergent complexity in the decision-making process of chess players.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the scale of aesthetics and creativity in chess.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Individual and team performance in cricket.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Quantifying the complexity and similarity of chess openings using online chess community data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From sports to science, the recent availability of large-scale data has allowed to gain insights on the drivers of human innovation and success in a variety of domains. Here we quantify human performance in the popular game of chess by leveraging a very large dataset comprising of over 120 million games between almost 1 million players. We find that individuals encounter hot streaks of repeated success, longer for beginners than for expert players, and even longer cold streaks of unsatisfying performance. Skilled players can be distinguished from the others based on their gaming behaviour. Differences appear from the very first moves of the game, with experts tending to specialize and repeat the same openings while beginners explore and diversify more. However, experts experience a broader response repertoire, and display a deeper understanding of different variations within the same line. Over time, the opening diversity of a player tends to decrease, hinting at the development of individual playing styles. Nevertheless, we find that players are often not able to recognize their most successful openings. Overall, our work contributes to quantifying human performance in competitive settings, providing a first large-scale quantitative analysis of individual careers in chess, helping unveil the determinants separating elite from beginner performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.