It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
We created 4 sequences of chess moves intended (and verified) as sufficiently good (2 sequences), in play quality, or bad (2 sequences) to induce contrast. In experiment 1, 24 experienced chess-players (USCF Elo > 1300) watched these sequences and rated them with regards to overall quality (−100 to +100) and estimated Elo ratings, a proxy for play quality, of the players involved. In experiment 2, a different group of 24 experienced chess-players rated the sequences of chess games by “How much better did the winner play than the loser?” on a 1 to 7 scale. Results revealed negative contrast (experiment 1) and no evidence of condensation (experiments 1 and 2) as well as the potential that one’s own actual Elo may have anchored the ratings given to one set of stimuli.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer





