The relationship between cognitive ability and chess skill: a comprehensive meta-analysis.
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Burgoyne et al. (2016) found a substantial correlation between cognitive ability test scores and chess performance for beginners and less-skilled players, but the relations were no longer significant for highly-skilled players.
“Burgoyne et al. (2016) found a substantial correlation between test scores of cognitive ability and chess performance for beginners and less-skilled players, but the relations were no longer significant for highly-skilled players.”
From Deliberate Practice and Proposed Limits on the Effects of Practice on the Acquisition of Expert Performance: Why the Original Definition Matters and Recommendations for Future Research (2019) · cites this paper as Burgoyne et al., 2016
The Results of the Moderator Analyses report a stronger correlation for unranked than ranked players, supporting the first part of the claim. But the correlation for ranked players was still statistically significant (r = .14, p = .018), contrary to the claim that the relation was no longer significant at higher skill levels. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 181
- Authors
- Burgoyne, A. P., Sala, G., Gobet, F., Macnamara, B. N., Campitelli, G., & Hambrick, D. Z.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- Edith Cowan University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Burgoyne, Alexander P.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 59
- Pages
- 72-83
- ISSN
- 0160-2896 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2518020139
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11
- FWCI
- 23.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2018-11-01)
- Open access
- green
- orcid.org
- Locations
- Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Research Online (Edith Cowan University) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- cognitive ability, fluid reasoning, short-term memory, processing speed, numerical ability, individual differences, age differences, skill level
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
