Boys are better at chess than Girls.

Did you know that facetiously is the only word in the English language with all of the vowels, including y, once each and in order?

you're gonna make me google things I didnt want to have to google

 I didnt know this, now I do, thanks. Oh , what is a word called that is the same when spelled backwards or forwards ? An example is " racecar"

Don't bother, lobster, thegrobe's been around a while too. 

I wish I could find that thread...

Palindrome.

A few of my favourites:

• Pull up if I pull up.
• Ten animals I slam in a net.
• A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!

(Yikes -- what does it say about me that I have favourite palindromes?)

i agree...

abstemiously

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/17.html

You no-good filthy liar.

(A simple check of dictionary.com would ensure me that abstemiously is a word...but who has the time)

I (apparently a no-good filthy liar) stand corrected:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstemiously

I'd never heard the word before today.

Now I don't know what to believe is racecar a pallindrome? Is there even a canal in Panama?

The only really fair test would be to take the average rating of all rated male players and compare to the average rating of all rated female players. There is probably some way of doing this on the FIDE website, as they keep a database of all ratings. I'm not convinced there would be much difference, if any at all. The large concentration of males in the top 1% is explained by the large concentration of males in every 1% - more men play chess than women. I'd imagine there is an equally large concentration of males in the bottom 1%.

Boy aren't better then girls in chess. There equal. And so what if there's more GM then WGM. That doesn't prove anything. Some girls are so good they get the title GM.

 Look, an easy way to do this is to figure what % of chessplaying females reach 2500 fide compared to the % of males that do so. Simple

But simply finding a disparity won't tell you why there's a disparity.  Innate chess ability is not the only possible cause.

Women are equal to men in chess. The only reason there are more great men chess players is the shear number of men playing compared to the number of women playng. I dnt think you can go ny the average yet. Until recently girls were never encouraged to pay seriously or had people teaching them as seriously as the boys. I did notice growing up the boys were always taken a little more seriously than I was. Thngs seem to be changing (thanks to Susan Polgar & others), so maybe within 10 more years the young girls in the elementary schools that are now playing chess more & that have more guidance & encouragement, you wil see even more women on the master & grandmaster levels.

It is beneath me to respond to such a pathetic statement.

Is it so hard to believe that one gender might be better than another at something?  We already know that men are better at running, lifting weights etc because they are bigger and stronger; that isn't sexist, it's just a fact.

The fact is that men are better than women at Chess.

Here are my facts:

The average male grade is 84 elo higher than the average female grade and has been for about the last 10 years, before-which the female grade was worse by comparison.  This does suggest that female players are getting stronger over time, and who knows what might happen in the future, but certainly at the moment males are a superior strength.

To conclude:  The reasons for the above may or may not be biological, I suspect not; but they are matter of fact none-the-less, irrespective of the reasons.  Let's get the split between biological potential capability and actual capability accurate.  FACTS can never be SEXIST or RACIST.

A

Lol grobe, nobody is saying that women are dumber than men, although there are different mental capabilities that men have on average better than women unless you just want to ignore any study ever done because not doing so would be sexist. Men have been known to, on average, have better problem solving skills than women. I think a big point everyone has been missing is that both players have to be interested in chess to be compared! Well what about the random guy playing a girl in chess when neither like it that much. I've seen it a few times, and (unless the guy is nice and lets the girl win) the guy usually wins. When neither player study about chess at all, it's just a pure logic game with no experience to draw back on and this could tell who was better at solving the problems on the board even though they weren't really players. And grobe it's because more men have the better problem solving skills which makes more men become obsessed with and study it and get better. Because you don't see that girl who's good at chess every day (usually there's only like one if at all at the tournament, and it's refreshing to see one). A person is not interested in chess because they are not good at it because they don't understand the purpose of the moves and would have trouble learning it. And usually they will say it's boring. Those aspiring chess players like fischer and perhaps waitzkin had an interest because they could understand the tactics and strategy more easily than most others could. So we can conclude that if there are more interested male players (because they have a talent for the game or can improve more easily) than female players (like susan polgar, you just knew she had talent if you watched that video about her), it probably means that men are better than women. There have been women who made it to GM of course but they always stopped at some point or "gived up improving" before world champ level which may mean it's harder for them to improve. Add to this the more male GM's and what reb said about 2500 players, and the opinion is starting to look ok. And I'm not sexist at all, and it's an interesting question but I'm not saying that women are dumber. But I'm not going to deny something that could be true either. As reb said, they are perhaps more practical that they don't "waste time" playing something like chess even though they don't have a talent for it. And I want more women playing the game and fide created those groups, basically admitting they aren't as good because so few would be able to put up any resistance against players today like Anand or Kramnik. But their obsession is one of the advantages so you can't just ignore that or call it "unfair" for judging who is better because it comes from something.

I never said "dumber" either -- I said "innate chess ability".

And would someone with innate chess ability refuse to get better? It's either that, or the obsession of problem solving in general based on logic. And this is not just chess, who has the time to give tutorials about sudoku puzzles, complicated math, even the best strategy in monopoly or poker. These are all dominated by men because they like that kind of thinking and the best want to show how good they are at whatever of those or other similar hobbies they have. Are you saying girls are probably just as good at those, because they don't like them? Why don't they like them? They have trouble with it, especially math. When you were younger, ever ask your mom about your 6th grade math homework or something, and they would get all confused? They don't like math, because they're not good at it (in general of course, just as there are good girl chess players out there, it just goes against their nature a bit). That's fine. They're very good at other things. But at the same time everyone is welcoming more women into the game as much as possible which only could have been done with "women only" tournaments and stuff like that.