African chess players

There is a numerical effect here. If, for the sake of argument, we consider a chess rating of 1500 average, 2000 and up is a good player, and 1000 and below is a poor player, if you have 5 chess players, you'll probably only find one in the above 2000 range. If you have 50 chess players, you'll probably find 10 who are above 2000. The odds are much greater that one of those ten will also be above 2200 in comparison to the one in the case where there were only 5 players total. If you take 500 chess players, you'll find 100 that are above 2000, and you'll definately find players over 2200, and the odds of finding players over 2400 increase. As you find more and more players, higher ratings become more accessible. In highschool, I was on the swim team, and whenever we would have a meet with the high school on the other side of town, they would always win. The racial make up was the exact same between the two teams, and the two schools were separated by a 5-10 minute drive (so there was no geographical difference). The difference was that their team was always at least 2-3 times larger than ours, and so they were more likely to have better swimmers. 

I think that an individual can be inherently suited to a particular endeavor, but I don't think it's necessarily spread throughout an entire race. When there is a person of a particular race (whose race isn't commonly involved in that activity) who dominates the competition, sometimes that ignites interest in the community, and in effect this finds those who are inherently good (whereas without the well-known person, these people would have never been culturally pushed into trying the activity, and their ability would have never been discovered) and then we start to see that race dominating. 

I'm sorry but I am having an absolute bastard of a time finding respectable scholarly journal articles that you don't have to pay for. I'm having flashbacks to writing my thesis. In any case here is an article that at least sort of explains what I mean when I say race is culturally constructed. When most people refer to race they are actually refering to dominant phenotypes it may seem like an arbitrary distinction but in terms biological classifications it is not. http://amst101.blogspot.com/2010/05/4-cultural-construction-of-race.html

And if you are really interested in my point of view you can buy this I guess: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226639 From the abstract: Phenotypic traits have been used for centuries for the purpose of racial classification. Developments in quantitative population genetics have allowed global comparison of patterns of phenotypic variation with patterns of variation in classical genetic markers and DNA markers. Human skin color shows a high degree of variation among geographic regions, typical of traits that show extensive natural selection. Even given this high level of geographic differentiation, skin color variation is clinal and is not well described by discrete racial categories. Craniometric traits show a level of among-region differentiation comparable to genetic markers, with high levels of variation within populations as well as a correlation between phenotypic and geographic distance. Craniometric variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world. Nonetheless, the boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species.

As for the variance in standardized test scores among different races in America again difficulties in finding scholarly journal articles that are both relevant AND free. It is late here(I'm currently in Indonesia) I'm going to bed but if there is still any real interest in this thread tomorrow I will get back to it tomorrow night after my journey to Singapore. Night

Race is very hard to hard to define.. but one cannot deny that there are no races. Don't you recognize various races in this image?

You can tell that there are differences in their appearance. In some area's people have a set of genes that makes them different. I don't know how many genes "make a race", but if our genes are 95% identical to chimp dna then my guess is that 0,xx% of our genes creates the racial differences.

Another thing is the environment in which people grow up. The environment is basicly anything that has happend after your mom and father's genes mixed into you. Embryo's grow under very different conditions depending on where you live. And after birth the environment also consist of many factors that make you to the person who you are today. (or in other words: how your genes have resulted in a phenotype.) 
 

Another interesting part of the Environment is culture. Culture is basicly a whole bunch of habits that is passed on from generation to generation. A culture is practiced within a group (family, company, country, friends, any group). I think a culture only consists of knowledge. Culture is being practiced when a person uses the knowledge: talking, painting, dancing, organising, building, anything that we do. 
Needless to say is that those habits are also shaped by the environment (a caveman in France paints a horse because he has seen a horse).
 

So which race is more suited to play chess? It cannot be answered yet. Races do not really exist. Our genes have mixed into a huge pool (with 'hotspots'). Eversince humanity started we have mixed our genes, quite intensively, and alongside cultures mixes all the time. Internet and globalisation have spread culture more than ever! This proces will likely continu and chances are that humans will become a more homogeneous group, both in genes and culture.

But at this time we can say for sure that there are differences. The thing that I believe grows chess GMs for the biggest part is culture. In some parts of the worlds chess is part of the history. There where facilities to play and a group of people that supported it. An equal talent in Russia will probably proliferate his chess skills much more than someone in Africa. A talent thrives on its environment. Also it depends how much fitness chess gives you. Fitness as in: how much chess benefits your live. Perhaps chess is not as much rewarding in one place or the other. In general I believe chess is formed by culture mostly and for a tiny bit by genes. My bet is that an Asian guy will be world's nr1 in 50 years :) 

A question that remains is why chess has become popular in some parts of the world, allowing a chessculture to thrive, and why it hasn't in other parts of the world. I don't know the answer to that, chance might have a big influence here too. A book that address such questions is Guns, Germs, and Steel. 

I haven't read it, but if I understood it correctly the books explains how chance and the environment shapes people. The subject is being viewed from many perspectives and this is why the professor started researching it:

The prologue opens with an account of Diamond's conversation with Yali, a New Guinean politician. The conversation turned to the obvious differences in power and technology between Yali's people and the Europeans who dominated the land for 200 years, differences that neither of them considered due to any genetic superiority of Europeans. Yali asked, using the local term "cargo" for inventions and manufactured goods, "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?" (p. 14)

You're right.  It was mostly a non-serious replay to a non-serious comment.

I read the link.  But even before reading it I'd have to agree different races dominated sports.  I can turn on my TV to see that   But I think my point is still valid, "by how much do they dominate?"  If you want to say one race is less intelligent (or one gender is less intelligent for that matter) you'd have to be right.  Only a fool would say everyone is the same.  But I don't believe, for example, that it's significantly harder for women or non-Russians to make the GM title.

Maybe in the future we'll be less touchy about it.  It wasn't so long ago that that kind of research was used to justify social inequality.  Society is like a big dumb slow person lol.  It only has enough time and thought to deal with what's right in front of it.  Something would have to happen to make it socially acceptable again.  Yeah that's dumb to most individuals you'd ask, but collectively somehow we're not so smart

Probably a sociologist could explain my thought better...

Perhaps the Jewish race is on the average, more talented than every other race, since nearly half the WCs are Jewish.

This is from the wiki article on race and intelligence:

The decoding of the human genome has enabled scientists to search for sections of the genome that contribute to cognitive abilities, and there are also ways to study whether the differences in frequency of particular genetic variants between populations contribute to differences in average cognitive abilities. However the geneticist, Alan R. Templeton suggests this question is muddled by the general focus on "race" rather than on populations defined by gene frequency or by geographical proximity, and by the general insistence on phrasing the question in terms of heritability.^[96] Templeton argues that racial groups neither represent sub-species or distinct evolutionary lineages, and that therefore there is no basis for making claims about the general intelligence of races.^[97] He also finds that phrasing the question in terms of heritability not helpful because heritability "by definition is not applicable to between-population phenotypic differences" and is therefore "completely irrelevant to the question of genetic differentiation for any trait, including intelligence, among human populations." Templeton argues that the only way to design a study of the genetic contribution to intelligence is to the correlation between degree of geographic ancestry and cognitive abilities. He argues that this would require a Mendelian "common garden" design where specimens with different hybrid compositions are subjected to the same environmental influences, and he further argues that when this design has been carried out, it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry.^[98]

Intelligence is both a quantitative and polygenic trait. This means that intelligence is under the influence of several genes, possibly several thousand. The effect of most individual genetic variants on intelligence is thought to be very small, well below 1% of the variance in g. Current studies using quantitative trait loci have yielded little success in the search for genes influencing intelligence. Robert Plomin is confident that QTLs responsible for the variation in IQ scores exist, but due to their small effect sizes, more powerful tools of analysis will be required to detect them.^[99] Others assert that no useful answers can be reasonably expected from such research before an understanding of the relation between DNA and human phenotypes emerges.^[74]

A 2005 literature review article on the links between race and intelligence in American Psychologist stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time".^[100] Several candidate genes have been proposed to have a relationship with intelligence.^[101][102] However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in Deary, Johnson & Houlihan (2009) failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences".^[103]

They cite all of their sources, if you have a problem with an assertion you can simply click the source, look at who produced the study and whether it is politically biased or deserves to be discredited in some way. If you'd like you can go through that article and point me to which studies can be debunked and by who. The problem here is that you're the one making the claim that race and intelligence are related and yet I haven't seen anything linked from you. You stated earlier that there are empirical studies that could prove your point. Where are they? If you're going to go around making the claim that one race is less intelligent than another the burden of proof should be placed squarely on your shoulders. And in regards to why no one has ever thought that race influences culture. That is literally how everyone thought for like all of history until the last 100 or so years.  

+1

Culture and economics (e.g. opportunity) play a huge role in how we interact with the world and certainly with a game such as chess. Given a proper opportunity, pretty much anyone can excel in chess and with enough time (starting young), enough passion and some (maybe a lot of) talent anyone of any race or gender can become GM strength. Super GM probably needs a little something more but again, race and gender play only a minor role overall.

Culture probably has the biggest impact on how any particular person will react to this game. Certain cultures, in general, may not have the mindset to take to the game (mindset is not intelligence).

Economics also plays into and is likely influenced by culture. A region or culture that does not have the economic security or leisure time to pursue a game that has has little, or obvious, economic incentive is unlikely to pursue said game and if they do, it would unlikely be beyond a casual way.

Sure, there are likely to be exceptions and certain cultures may place a higher emphasis on leisure activities and more intellectual pursuits. The whole outlook that race is the issue, especially in something that is at its essence, a mind game, is heading to the wrong conclusion and can better be explained by culture and the opportunities presented to that culture.

The argument being made for race playing role, can point more to cultural and economic realities. Sure, you can argue that race helps define culture, to some extent; especially among a homogenous sub-group or region.

Similar arguments can and have been made about gender. Again, culture plays a very large role in what certain societies present as the proper role for each gender and things like Science, Mathematics, Warfare, and Chess as examples, have historically been acceptable for male endeavors but have generally been discouraged for females. Even today in many cultures, even ones with the opportunity and economic means to allow people to play a game as a hobby, many women still don't pursue these fields and chess is no exception.

On the gender front, the Polgar sisters are a very good indicator that women can play high level chess and as was posted earlier, it becomes a numbers game. The more women that play chess, the more that will get better and as it becomes more an more accepted, the likelihood of more top level female GMs  is higher.

The same can be said of racial differences. For those that have the culture for it and the opportunity and economics, they too will begin having more an more players at the top levels of chess. You just have to look to programs like the IS 318 how well their chess program has done. Justus Williams at over 2300 and other strong players in what is an economically depressed area of NYC. I'm sure there are other examples that I'm unaware of.

If you want to read a good artical on cultural differences, take a look at this article. Again, you can argue, if you wish, that culture is a racial construct, but I think the overall argument that race plays a major role in why there aren't many GMs of African decent, is way too simplistic and ignores a lot of dependent variables.

You're right, sorry. That was in response to a comment by 14 words. Sure, I see where you're coming from. When you look at biological differences it completely makes sense to wonder whether biological traits among people from diffferent areas effect intelligence. And in fact for a very long time that is what people thought. But contrary to what you're stating there have been many such studies and none of them conclusively shown any link between intelligence and genetic difference among racial groupings. That is simply where we are with the issue at the present time and to go around claiming otherwise is doing a diservice to the work that's been done in the field. Think of it this way, phenotypical differences are naturally selected to cope with the environment. There isn't really an environment that would select AGAINST intelligence. There are certainly environments which can stunt achievement and I think guns germs and steel, which was mentioned earlier,does a very good job of showing how cultures can thrive if they live in a environment that is rich in natural resources but cultural achievement and actual intelligence are completely different things as well. Anyway, don't know how much longer I'll be able to be around as my computer looks like it could die on me anytime now. I'll leave you with a study that looks at some misinterpretations of facts in one of the more popular studies that tries to equate race and intelligence:     http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Nisbett-commentary-on-30years.pdf

CNN & ESPN recently ran a story about a rising African star, Phiona Mutesi. Inspiring story of a 16 yr old girl from the slums of Uganda who learned chess to receive free food and is now playing in international tournaments with success. All she needed was an opportunity to learn.

Also what Martin_Stahl said +1

There are zero Japanese (born and raised) GM's as far as I know.

Nakamura is racially Japanese, but culturally American, and one of the top players in the world. Does that prove, disprove or suggest anything?

Again, is it race/gender or culture? Or likely some combiniation along with race/gender differences playing only a small part?

Statements like this are specifically what I was addressing.

Also I have a problem with "I believe that inherent psychological traits probably play an important role..." Why do you believe this? Can you point me to any source that would back up such a claim? It's an awfully bold statement.

Yes, there are differences in gender and psychological makeup but how much of that is cultural and how much is evolutionary? And how much do those differences impact how one plays the game of chess?

There is no right way to play chess and even male GMs play the games in different ways at times that play to their psychological makeups. Judit Polgar was in rated 8th in the world in 2005 and is still in the top 100 at 53rd. She had ample opportunity to excel in the game and was/is as strong as male players; she started at a young age, had the economic ability to allow her parents to provide training and access to tournaments. Susan and Sofia Polgar are also very strong players.

Given ample opportunity and a chess friendly culture anyone of any race could excel in chess. But the statement that "inherent psychological traits probably play an important role in forming different cultures" is an interesting one and one that probably needs a lot of study. If you look at societies that have a more heterogeneous culture, I think you will find that the racial component is less pronounced and more influenced by economic factors.

I do agree, that it is a very complex issue and one that will be hard to prove one way or the other, especially when it comes to chess. I don't think you can get many people that would be willing to do what the Polgars did or get enough finances together to design an experiment in a way to include multiple cultures, making sure all are on an equal footing when it comes to the opportunity to excel.

It is a commonly held view because there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. I'm not saying the act of making such a claim is bold or wrong it's the fact that you're trying to make a claim which flies in the face of the viewpoint commonly accepted by nearly all anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, geneticists et al. with nothing but your own say so. I mean sure you can do that, but don't expect to be taken seriously by people who have actually put in the work to study the subject and read the literature.

The hard part is that in many cultures, race often can't be removed from the equation, as they are very homogenous. Though, in sufficiently large enough areas, especially those that are geographically isolated from each other, you can see cultural differences.

But even in societies that have similar racial makeups, there are cultural differences. Also, you have to look at sub-cultures within any given culture and look at how economics, opportunity and history have driven cultural changes that have nothing to do with race.

Don't you think it's more likely that the fact that men, in most cultures, are raised to be more competitive than woman are drawn to enage in competitive activities like chess? I think where we are getting our wires crossed is that these differences are mostly shown in studies to be due to cultural factors like gender norms rather than "inherent psychology". If you're going to throw around terms like inherent psychology in regards to race or sex you shoud be able to back that up.  http://www.stanford.edu/~niederle/NV.AnnualReview.Print.pdf