Explaining chess success in terms of population and GDP
By Leung Weiwen
Larger countries are typically better at chess than small ones. By “better”,
I mean according to the ratings of the top players or total number of grandmasters.
Thus, whenever large and small countries are compared, it is common to hear
objections that the comparison was unfair. The same goes when rich and poor
countries are compared.
This leads to two questions: First, is it possible to take into account the
population size or average income of countries when comparing them? Second,
is it possible to calculate how important population and GDP are in determining
chess success? Fortunately, yes, using something known as regression analysis
in statistics.

Figure 1. Relationship between average rating of top players and population
The figure above is a scatterplot of various countries’ population against
the average ratings of their top ten players in May 2011. What we can do is
to draw a line of best fit. This line minimizes the gaps between all the points
and the lines.
One immediately notices that there is indeed a positive relationship between
population and the average ratings as the top ten players. However, there are
clearly a lot of other factors affecting these average ratings, as few of the
points lie on the line. If population was the only factor involved, all points
would fit neatly onto the line.
We can see that Russia (the point in red) is still much stronger than we would
expect based on its population.
Doing something similar with GDP per capita (adjusted for cost of living) results
in the diagram below. As Hong Kong is below the line, we say that based on its
GDP, Hong Kong is much weaker than what we expect it to be.

Figure 2. Relationship between average rating of top players and GDP per
capita (adjusted for cost of living)
It is possible to adjust for both factors simultaneously. One can then calculate
the expected rating of the top ten players of each country based on its population
and GDP. Thereafter, one can see which countries are stronger than expected,
and which are weaker than expected.
In the table below, AvgRtg refers to the average rating of the top ten players,
and Expected refers to the expected average based solely on the country’s
GDP and population. If the difference is positive, then the country is stronger
than expected, given its population and GDP.
No |
Country |
AvgRtg |
Expected |
Difference |
1 |
Armenia |
2654 |
2185 |
+469 |
2 |
Georgia |
2611 |
2200 |
+411 |
3 |
Moldova |
2480 |
2136 |
+344 |
4 |
Montenegro |
2452 |
2124 |
+328 |
5 |
Iceland |
2509 |
2188 |
+321 |
6 |
Azerbaijan |
2639 |
2320 |
+319 |
7 |
Bulgaria |
2623 |
2322 |
+301 |
8 |
Ukraine |
2696 |
2398 |
+298 |
9 |
Serbia |
2595 |
2310 |
+285 |
10 |
Bosnia Herzegovina |
2499 |
2230 |
+269 |
Table 1. Top chess playing countries, after accounting for population and
GDP
Armenia comes out tops. This suggests it may have one or more of the following:
a good national federation, strong governmental support for chess, or other
aspects of strong chess culture.
Many of the top countries were formerly communist. However, they do not dominate
the list. There are many examples of good chess culture in countries that were
not formerly communist. Such countries that have average ratings 100 points
or more higher than expected are Iceland, Faroe Islands, Israel, Philippines,
Monaco, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, Paraguay, Norway, and Argentina.
To the best of my knowledge, none of these countries have state support for
chess at the level of any former Soviet Bloc country.
For the complete list of countries, you may see pages 10 to 13 of my full study.
For the processes and equations used, you may see pages 1 to 9 of my full study.
One would get roughly similar results if one used the total number of titled
players as a measure of chess success, rather than average ratings of top players.
Another important result that emerged from my analysis was that population
and GDP do not explain more than half of a country’s chess success (even when
combined). In fact, depending on how one measures chess success, these factors
account for 17% to 40% of a country’s chess success at present. Population and
GDP do positively influence a country’s chess success, but being small or poor
does not place a country at a large disadvantage. True, it is not so easy to
compete with big and rich countries. However, a number of the top 20 nations
(according to average rating of top 10, unadjusted for population or
GDP) are either small or poor: Armenia, Hungary, Israel, and the Netherlands
are four uncontroversial exceptions.
|
Links
Leung Weiwen is a second year undergraduate at the Singapore Management
University. He majors in Economics & Applied Statistics, and is currently
on exchange in Utrecht University in the Netherlands. He used to play
chess for his school and Singapore, and has been involved with the Singapore
Chess Federation in various capacities.
Copyright
Leung Weiwen/ChessBase
|