tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post354808438894659014..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: DG XXV: "Verghese, chess, Alzheimer’s"Tom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-46724358078113632212015-08-26T07:12:46.282+01:002015-08-26T07:12:46.282+01:00@anonymous
Given that one of the consistent theme...@anonymous<br /><br />Given that one of the consistent themes of this series is appropriate referencing, I decided long ago that I wasn’t going to take cut and pate quotes from websites unless a link was provided to that website. If you want to resubmit your comment with a link I’ll publish.<br /><br /><br />Secondly,<br /><br />the Verghese article doesn’t mention the word "chess" at all. That is a fact. An attempt to use Verghese’s study to claim that "chess is a valuable way to combat Alzheimer’s" without mentioning that the study doesn’t actually mention chess is inherently suspect.<br /><br />We do know that the analysis category that Verghese used "playing board games or cards" actually meant "board games such as chess, checkers, backgammon or cards" <br />- see <a href="http://www.streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/doctor-garry-iii-dogs-that-dont-bark.html" rel="nofollow">DG III</a> and <a href="http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/dg-iv-after-six-years-thought.html" rel="nofollow">DG IV</a> from May and June last year.<br /><br />However if you read the Verghese itself - link provided in the current post and many others in the series - there’s absolutely nothing to say how many of the boardgamer/card players where chess players, still less how many of the 'frequent' boardgames/card players where chess players.<br /><br />Finally, that there is an association between cognitively stimulating activities and favourable outcomes with regard to dementia is not in dispute. The question that remains unresolved is whether there is a causal link.<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/dg-vi-doctor-susan.html" rel="nofollow">DG VI</a>I for details of the Verghese study stating explicitly that their study didn’t demonstrate a causal link.<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/dg-xxii-return-of-doctor-akbaraly.html" rel="nofollow">DG XXII</a> for a discussion about the difference between association and cause.<br /><br />Finally, I was already aware of the interview that you mention. I’m not super keen on references to newspapers and interviews on websites - see <a href="http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/dg-v-in-news.html" rel="nofollow">DG V</a>. If you are going to resubmit your comment you might want to explain why you think a few lines of a radio interview is more significant than articles written up in peer-reviewed academic journals as cited in this comment/the current post and elsewhere in the series.<br /><br />I’ll leave that one up to you.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.com