11680 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!
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.
OK, but thats the point. Since less women play, men are GENERALLY better.
If the same number of women played as men, than it would be a different story.
So your experiment would:
a) Abandons any kind of random assignment as we obviously can't assign people randomly to men vs women
b) Matches people on IQ which has a very questionable relationship to chess ability
c) Abandons any notions of "blind" experimenters
d) Defines chess skill as some unspecified test after a completely naive subject has been given two weeks of lessons
e) Has some wacky experimental design where we repeat the experiment on 10 groups of 100 instead of doing the experiment on 1000 subjects (what was your reasoning on that, btw?)
You ought to be careful not to make such elementary mistakes when criticising the writing of others.
lol @ "extra word"
A few reasons I can think of:
b) Fear of Failure - This was all the rage back in the '80's when I last studied psychology so I have no idea about the status of it now but the gist then was that there were serious sexual differences in fear of failure. Men were apparently much better at saying "If I try and fail, that sucks but I'll live" than women were. Every chess game is an opportunity to fail and if you are very afraid of that, it makes sense to never set up the pieces.
Actually, I frequently find that the reverse is true when men are facing women as opposed to other men. While many guys and groups of guys I've encountered display great confidence in their ability to win against a girl or girls, they also fear the idea of losing to a girl due to the social stigma that losing to a girl is shameful and somehow makes you 'less' of a man. I have also seen guys take lots of shit from their buddies for losing to a girl, which only reinforces this stigma. It would be nice if this perception that a guy who loses to a girl must be weak and the accompanying perception that a girl who wins against a guy is somehow more impressive than if she'd beaten another girl would go away, but I don't see that happening for a long time.
I've seen men get harassed on here for "Losing to a girl" even when she was much higher rated. I don't understand why more ''girls" don't take offence at this attitude.
The "would" is an extra word, moron.
On a very basic level, yes, but you completely misrepresented the substance of the error. And then you completely ignored that I was being a pedantic jerk in response to you being a pedantic jerk about someone else's spelling. So what, when everyone else makes a mistake it's proof of their idiocy, but when you make a mistake you're just so brilliant and wonderfully-educated that you can't help but have these things slip into your writing every now and then?
Christ, no wonder ciljettu likes you; what's the collective noun for slimy, self-important hypocrites?
Haha. This guy, this guy.
Men and women clearly aren't equals, check out the rankings.
I don't like to think of it this way. I prefer to think we are wired a bit differently and hence, better at different things.
I agree with nameno1had, It takes a certain type of personality to study chess scholastically and I think more men are driven to it than women. Every once in awhile a genius might come along that doesn't have to try like the rest of us (male or female) or a person with a photographic memory might only have to view old games. What is it that makes more men study chess at a higher level than women? I think it's clear men are not more intelligent than women, so why would chess be any different? I guess that generally women have different hobbies and interests than men do and so it only appears that men are better than women at chess because there's a majority of male players in the field.
Sounds like the same thing. Men and women aren't equal. Women are better looking, men are better at everything else.
I'd say women are far better at giving birth and suckling babies. I will give women the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being better at performing sexual functions too...
Sounds like the same thing. Men and women aren't equal. men are better at everything to do with being a thicko.
Yeah, we all know that's not true...
Anyway, it was only meant in a light hearted way.
Light hearted banter? So now we're calling for @Ciljettu, and his clones?
Chess is (much too often) a trash talking, macho war game. Thankfully, women like Judit Polgar can overlook these limitations, while she kicks male butt.
When we eventually have a woman as WC, and we will, then all the "machitos" will quickly change their tune by saying--but there are so many more men in the second tier of the GM ranks.
So what. Get over it.
One could add that Carlsen, Aronian and countless others are able to kick plenty of female butt but there is little point in bickering with someone who thinks it looks cool to mock your own gender.
You unctuous little twit. Please don't tell me how to talk in the locker room. I doubt you have ever been in one, except perhaps the men's locker room of your swimming pool.
Dirty Harry, indeed. @Ciljettu, sing us the Monty Python lumberjack song, pretty please. You're such a manly man.
Just find it curious how you feel the need to mock your masculinity in order to try and look clever. Wonder how you would react if a woman came here and said "Carlsen can kick female butt..."
Another breathtaking non-sequitur from @Ciljettu, the logician (and magician) of gender discussions with the underaged.
We remain ever in your debt, your Lordship.
Have a nice Holiday weekend, everyone.
Hardly a non-sequitur.
I know many other girls who find it offensive. After all, underlying the stigma is the assumption that girls are inherently inferior, hence why a guy who loses to a girl is considered a 'wimp' or a 'weakling'. The mutual insecurity caused by this bias is probably responsible for the defensive behavior some women competitors display toward male opponents, and for the hostility some male competitors display toward female opponents.
@Joey, this thread (and so many like it) are ample testimony to "trash taking men with a chip on their shoulder."
Yes, tourneys are quiet. So what. You mistake the part for the whole. I said nothing about how male GMs comport themselves.
For the disinterested reader of this thread, the roughly 260 posts contain more than enough "evidence" for what I have asserted. And most folks will make up their own minds, quietly.
Have a nice Memorial Weekend, everyone.
I don't get some men...I would be happy to have several women chess players thrash me regularly, just because I am a gluton for punishment...In fact, I'd rather lose to a woman than another dude...
"After all, underlying the stigma is the assumption that girls are inherently inferior, hence why a guy who loses to a girl is considered a 'wimp' or a 'weakling'."
That's just crap. First off, most guys I know couldn't give a hoot whether their competitor is male, female, or alien. They just don't like to lose (I actually really hate losing to people under the age of 12 or so so I have my own biases). Second off, everyone knows that rating trumps sex always and everywhere. You have to find a really dumb guy who says "Yeah well she has 200 rating points on me but she's a girl thus inherently inferior so I should win" (and this guy would probably be rated like 700 anyway). In your fantasies, people thnk like that. In real-life, they don't.
Just because the guys you know don't care more when their loss is to a girl than they do when its to a guy doesn't change the fact that some of the guys I know do. I fail to see why your personal experences make my personal experiences any less real. Also, Conflagration_Planet in his reply to me stated that he had seen guys harassed for losing to a girl on this very site, even when the girl had a higher rating, so clearly there are people who don't think that rating trumps gender. I am not saying that the guys you know or that you yourself feel this way, only that some of the guys I know do.
The power of 2 Rooks against a queen
by InteractiveConstruct a few minutes ago
What rating can you expect after learning how the pieces move?
by TheMouth888 a few minutes ago
Keene - Botvinnik 1966
by Crazychessplaya 2 minutes ago
Magnus Vs Anand WCC 2014
by Mersaphe 4 minutes ago
How to get to 2000 from 1900
by BigKingBud 5 minutes ago
Carlsen's next opponent in the WCC match
by Crazychessplaya 8 minutes ago
Adding weight to pieces
by SixRavens 11 minutes ago
11/26/2014 - Nowhere To Go
by Marq2400 22 minutes ago
Why does everyone use 2¼" boards ...
by andy277 23 minutes ago
Is 960chess better than regular chess?
by ipcress12 28 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!