what’s the benefits of playing chess
IMHO, the two biggest benefits of playing chess is problem solving and critical thinking.
The benefits of playing chess is alot, such as brain developing, like problem solving, better and quicker reactions, the ability to better observe your surroundings, and more, It does take time though so dont give up playing,
I want to be better at ultra but my reaction time is absolute POO.
Someone blundered their queen and I still lost on time.
The biggest benefit of playing chess is that you get better at playing chess.
This is not dumb. There have been a number of scientific studies on playing chess, and none of them say that it causes profound improvements in things like critical thinking, ADHD, dementia, or the ability to solve complex math problems. Sure they've found "statistically significant" improvements, but the overall effects are small. Chess will not make you a genius or radically improve your ability to solve differential equations. Thus, the biggest benefit of playing chess is that it makes you better at playing chess. So no, it's not dumb at all.
You will if you are playing frequently and learning from your mistakes. Learning new openings will help you as well.
This is not dumb. There have been a number of scientific studies on playing chess, and none of them say that it causes profound improvements in things like critical thinking, ADHD, dementia, or the ability to solve complex math problems. Sure they've found "statistically significant" improvements, but the overall effects are small. Chess will not make you a genius or radically improve your ability to solve differential equations. Thus, the biggest benefit of playing chess is that it makes you better at playing chess. So no, it's not dumb at all.
Uh...... Actually it does have profound effects on ADHD. In children, at least, and the effect size wasn't small.
This is just not true, and this is a subject that I know something about. Studies showed small improvements in scores that required concentration, and this was mostly due to subjects being able to spend more time solving problems. There were also small increases in listening retention in tests that I've seen, and small effects on disruptive behavior. One needs to remember that these studies were done *immediately* after extended chess study, and say nothing about long-term effects. One can imagine that if the study of chess ends, the benefits are likely to decay. There are improvements, but nothing in comparison to drugs like Ritalin, and can't be thought of as a replacement for drugs. It helps, I'll give you that, but it's not a panacea.
I urge you to look through the scientific literature and the effects listed, and not at summaries in online magazines. Remember, when social scientists use the term "significant", this does not mean "a lot". Significant is a statistical term that means you can notice the effects in the numbers. There is much confusion caused when headlines read "Significant increase!", Implying "a lot." This is not necessarily the case.
This is just not true, and this is a subject that I know something about. Studies showed small improvements in scores that required concentration, and this was mostly due to subjects being able to spend more time solving problems. There were also small increases in listening retention in tests that I've seen, and small effects on disruptive behavior. One needs to remember that these studies were done *immediately* after extended chess study, and say nothing about long-term effects. One can imagine that if the study of chess ends, the benefits are likely to decay. There are improvements, but nothing in comparison to drugs like Ritalin, and can't be thought of as a replacement for drugs. It helps, I'll give you that, but it's not a panacea.
I urge you to look through the scientific literature and the effects listed, and not at summaries in online magazines. Remember, when social scientists use the term "significant", this does not mean "a lot". Significant is a statistical term that means you can notice the effects in the numbers. There is much confusion caused when headlines read "Significant increase!", Implying "a lot." This is not necessarily the case.
Holy squids that's the most patronising comment I've ever read. My degree is literally in sociology and social psychology 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 which also means I know what words like significant and effect size mean.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25911280/
"Children with ADHD improved in both the SNAP-IV (t=6.23; degrees of freedom (df)=41; P<.001) and the CPRS-HI (t=5.39; df=33; P<.001).
Our results suggest a large effect in decreasing the severity of ADHD as measured by the SNAP-IV (d=0.85) and the CPRS-HI (d=0.85)"
Well would you look at that! A large effect size AND the results were very much statistically significant (P<0.05). It's use in multimodal treatment is recommended, not as a "Panacea". You'll remember that you're the one who claimed that no studies indicate that it has profound effects upon ADHD symptoms. I simply corrected you.
Honestly, don't even reply to me. I'm very interested in the topic and this could've been a great discussion about the existing literature, but you're unbearably patronising and seem to think everyone here must be thick as a whale's tongue. So "one" can find someone else to lecture at.
I will bother to answer. First, I was not being patronizing and your indignant outrage isn't warranted. I have literally no way of knowing what your training is based on a comment that could be made by anyone reading an article in Psychology Today. I have ADHD and an advanced degree is methods and statistics. I've looked at this issue *extensively*.
Second, this study does not comport with other studies that I have seen. Note that it's a small sample size that has not been replicated. The authors warn the reader "the results of our pilot study should be interpreted with caution." It's a pilot study. I don't have to remind you that this means a few people were tested to get an idea if further research needs to be conducted. Again, there is nothing definitive here, it has not been replicated, and other studies show small effects. But please, I'd appreciate a meta-analysis.
lilypushkin´s argument has conviced me
Well, I'm not convinced, AngryPuffer. But what I do know is that Sporkled presented this study with an emphatic QED when in the paper he fearlessly cites, the researchers specifically warn that he would be wrong in doing so. I am open to the idea that it could have a large effect, but I remain unconvinced.
play it cuz you enjoy it
