↓ Skip to main content

Response Time Distributions in Rapid Chess: A Large-Scale Decision Making Experiment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Response Time Distributions in Rapid Chess: A Large-Scale Decision Making Experiment
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2010
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2010.00060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariano Sigman, Pablo Etchemendy, Diego Fernández Slezak, Guillermo A. Cecchi

Abstract

Rapid chess provides an unparalleled laboratory to understand decision making in a natural environment. In a chess game, players choose consecutively around 40 moves in a finite time budget. The goodness of each choice can be determined quantitatively since current chess algorithms estimate precisely the value of a position. Web-based chess produces vast amounts of data, millions of decisions per day, incommensurable with traditional psychological experiments. We generated a database of response times (RTs) and position value in rapid chess games. We measured robust emergent statistical observables: (1) RT distributions are long-tailed and show qualitatively distinct forms at different stages of the game, (2) RT of successive moves are highly correlated both for intra- and inter-player moves. These findings have theoretical implications since they deny two basic assumptions of sequential decision making algorithms: RTs are not stationary and can not be generated by a state-function. Our results also have practical implications. First, we characterized the capacity of blunders and score fluctuations to predict a player strength, which is yet an open problem in chess softwares. Second, we show that the winning likelihood can be reliably estimated from a weighted combination of remaining times and position evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Other 4 6%
Professor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 28%
Computer Science 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Physics and Astronomy 6 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 18 27%
Unknown 6 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2021.
All research outputs
#14,388,554
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,641
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,745
of 172,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#22
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 172,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.