14885 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I skimed through article in some science mag a while back that said that if girls were encouraged to play ball sports as young kids the way boys are, it would help develop their spacial abilities.
I believe it too, I grew up next to a girl in junior high that could always beat me in basketball. It would be interesting to test athletic women in chess, but I see a lot of chessmasters that look like they read more books than play sports, I'm just sayin....
Josh Waitzkin said he believes physical activities help his chess. So did Fischer, come to think of it. But that's not the only thing that helps develop spatial ability. There are indeed other factors including natural talent.
I want to know about chess in Somalia and I am out of order? What the heck is that about? I asked a simple question and got multiple retorts filled with insults and I am out of order? Say what?
I was surprised but happy to see someone here from Somalia. If someone had asked me if there was interent serviec anywhere in the country I would have said no. Is there a finctioning telephone company in Somalia? Is there functioning cable? There wasn't in any significant way when Americans were last there.
The absolute best thing I could advise you to do is get out of your armchair (or whatever) , travel & get these questions answered by first hand knowledge not bigoted, media-fed disinformation ?
Curious about chess in Somalia ? Then go there, play chess, meet the people, before posting opinions on internet.
You'll find that people are actually advised against travelling to Somalia. It's not safe. Why is it offensive to say that?
Because we are not supposed to discuss politics, religion, cheating in these forums.
Well, don't advise people to travel there then...
Well I meant brave people not ones that are scared to travel there.
Some are good, but generally, men are better. Just look at the rating lists.
DaBigOne people have, and if you look at the number of men versus the number of women players, the outliers (those at the far end of the performance spectrum) are explained almost entirely by the simple disparity of numbers. Plenty of people who don't understand statistics think the rating list proves men are better. But it doesn't.
Good point. From a 'scientific' viewpoint (ie, theorise and then conduct experiments and collect data to show it holds water - or otherwise), what would 'prove' men are better at chess (or not)? And what do we mean by 'better at chess'?
When the cultural factors are balanced (as in the card game Bridge), women and men perform more or less equally.
But don't expect little girls to reach for a "war game" (Chess) early in their lives, while the little boys will be falling all over themselves to play it.
As for Somalia, we all basically live in cities, with internet connections.
Travel to most cities in the world, and their internal dynamics are very similar. The biggest difference between cities in the developed world versus cities in the developing world is probably just the size of their slums, the level of service delivery, and governance. Rich folks in cities live just fine.
We have lived in a "global village" for about the past 200 years, at least. And the extent of "globablization" might even have been greater in the past (i.e. before the first two World Wars). Cf. Angus Maddison's work in Economic History. He's a bear of a man, and speaks about seven languages fluently.
People really need to get off this "Scientism" kick. At least admit that there are "hard" and "soft" sciences, and don't exclude "sciences" that can't be quantified. Evolution is probably one of the most accepted "sciences" of the day, but it is hardly quantified, and largely devoid of predictions. Another great example of a science that got bashed for decades before it finally become "scientific," and accepted, was Plate Tectonics. And the same "scientism" mindset was at work there, resisting the change.
If you want to be awed by Math, Science, and Philosophy, writ large, read Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, about 500 pages.
But surely you're Joking Mr. Feynman!
Many Thanks to @Lebna and @Planet, I learned somethings about termites, and doctors in Somalia.
Through conversation, we can always learn from each other.
Is that so, zborg? What supporting data is there?
That might sound provocative but that is not my intention. It is a genuine question.
Go to a Duplicate Bridge Tournament, use your five senses, and talk to particpants, usually evenly split between men and women. That should be all the "data" you will need to answer your specific question above.
An earlier post #145, alluded to this same question. And @Kingpatzer provided a link to a (UK) Royal Society study in post #43. I am persuaded by this line of argument, perhaps you will be too.
Do the "stats" say men are (somehow) better in Physics, Math, and Chess. That's a matter of interpretation. Ask Larry Summers if you want sophisticated support for this view.
But there is no absoute ground in "data" or "numbers" or big name authorities, that lets you stand outide of the Human Conversation, writ large.
Ditto with Cosmology and String Theory. The Physicists and the Mathematematicians can always crack jokes about each other's rival interpretations. It goes with the territory.
We all need to lighten up a little. Where is @Snakesbelly when you really need him?
He could play us a soothing song, on his Warthog.
A disparity between the expected results based purely on the numbers of players in each pool and the actual observed results that is significant to the point of driving results.
Right now, about 4% of the rating difference between the pools is not explained purely by numerical counts. Given what we know to be huge cultural and non-intellectual drivers on women's participation (for example, women dropping out of play for a few years to raise children), it is hard to see such a small disparity as being primarily biologically driven.
But, that is merely hypothesis until we figure out how to control for those factors. Still, I honestly see no evidence that women are inherently inferior to men in this activity. As for "better," in this context it was purely a matter of attained ELO rating. But that is in and of itself a great question. If we measure "better" purely by results we may not get a full spectrum of factors to consider. Women may make better instructors than men, or be better at some other chess-related activity, which is surely being "better at chess" at some level if within some limited domain of activities covered under the chess banner.
Joey you sound a bit like a Western Cultural Imperialist here. There is civilised life outside US of A, you know.
Well, there's not much in it.
Did he say we need to go and bomb somalia? That is a treat and he can get arrested! How dare he!
Joey does not represent civilization, he is just an opinionated dolt.
As far as the topic of scientific research as to "are men actually better at chess than women" I am interested in this. It would be important to judge the experiment by how long a person has been familiar and played the game. If we took 10 men and 10 women who have never played chess at all and taught them the same curriculum for two weeks, would there be a statistical difference? we would have to repeat the experiment several times to get true accurate results, but I agree with Kingpatzer that there would not be a difference. It's just that more men play and like to believe they are superior.
Yes, robot and king, it would be an interesting experiment and the results also would be interesting. The only thing with experiments and studies of any nature is that somebody who does a seperate independent study would have results to dispute everything. I truly wish that there were more female players and whether they win more, lose more, are better or worse, the fact remains they do make the game more interesting. At one time there was no piece known as the queen. She came along much later during the 10th or 11th century, I believe. Still, you and king make a very interesting point worth investigating.
Here is an interesting article on some causes.
Wall Street Journal - How Women Can Get Ahead: Advice From Female CEO's
One thing it highlights is that women are less likely to engage in risky behaviors than men.
Indeed, women are much less represented in the Darwin Awards.
That's probably a good thing, for the human race.
What I find odd is that whilst it is politically correct to suggest women are better at certain things (like multitasking and empathy) it is not politically correct to suggest men might be better at certain things (like spatial perception). Interesting double standard.
Both are sexist.
Not exactly sure where this slipped away
by JasonStraight 2 minutes ago
People on this site are too conservative
by rdecredico 4 minutes ago
En passant in chess.com
by Pulpofeira 6 minutes ago
What will Nakamura's excuse be at Sinquefield 2014?
by The_Ghostess_Lola 6 minutes ago
Caro Kann Help
by chessarx 6 minutes ago
how to became GM
by justus_jep 6 minutes ago
by TBentley 7 minutes ago
8/28/2014 - White to Draw
by Goodthing12 12 minutes ago
by tliu1222 16 minutes ago
Positional (calm) player vs tactical (sharp) one
by ThrillerFan 23 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!