Boys are better at chess than Girls.

I'm not picking through your earlier rants point by point in order to refute them -- if you reformat them so that there's some white-space and I can actually read them without getting a headache I'd consider it.

Reb's point that there is a lower percentage of females who play chess getting to 2500 may well be true -- I'd certainly believe it, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's because women have a lower innate ability to play the game as you've implied.  As I said before, the only thing we can show are the whats -- the whys are up for debate, and there are plenty of alternate explanations all of which are equally unprovable.

This is an interesting point, because in order to conclusively say that one group was better than the other I'd be looking for a phase shift as opposed to a larger standard deviation.  If there are just as many "subnormals" as "supernormals" then on the average the original statement that men are better at chess than women is quite possibly incorrect as the impact of the "subnormals" cancels out the impact of the "supernormals" -- it certainly highlights the folly in simply comparing just the outliers.

It also occurs to me that the "subnormals" would likely not be chess players, which also highlights the selection bias of looking at just the group of chess players when making this generalizatoin with the intent of comparing chess potential.  Unfortunately, chess potential is also something that's impossible to measure, especially among non-chess-players.

I'm personally interested in the whys, and I have said many things here, but if we're going by the women who are totally into chess with the boys who are into chess, I can't see how the 2500 point (you know what it is) doesn't suggest anything at all. There are less female players (probably for some reasons) and they don't go up the ladder as much, that simple and if you don't want to read my posts, those are the most important and reliable points when you put them together. I want more of those "exceptional women" to come, but there haven't been enough in my opinion and it's totally unclear if the amount of women chess players and general interest will ever be near the dominant men. But I think that the fact that there aren't many women interested in it suggest something about their strength in it (and I already said some possible reasons that I really don't want to repeat again), but that along with the whys are admittedly up for debate and I won't say that is for sure fact.

No, not this particular post -- this one's measured.  It was implying that women in general can't handle sixth grade math among with some of your other claims that were sexist.

I think this is fundamentally where we disagree.  I'm not saying that it doesn't, but I just don't think it's a conclusion you can draw with any degree of confidence.

It was half joke. I mean my mom couldn't help me with my math homework, but it might have been higher than 6th grade lol. But it's not uncommon for me to see a lot of women who struggle at/ hate math, probably because there are lots out there. That's my observation and it's a generalization for a reason. But good for a woman who's good at math, because they're minds must be very good if they can get past their natural tendencies of their brain. I think you took the 6th grade thing too hard. That was an exaggeration and it might be just my mom lol. it's because she forgot due to a hate for the subject and had trouble after that. I have said all of my points and have nothing new to say, but I don't think they have been refuted. I'm done... I think. But if you're going to refute them, please assume they are true even if they're not, and see what you come up with.

In order to draw any valid conclusion about differences of any kind between the male and the female,you must first determine which individuals are male and which are female.

In order to determine this, a detailed and well documented examination of the genitalia of all the individuals to be included in the study must be performed prior to the commencement of the study itself.

However, any such study would still be flawed, since data on individuals unwilling to submit to such an examination would necessarily be excluded from the study.

I can't tell if you are saying it's fact or are joking. But no saying that doesn't make me evil, because whether I'm evil or not stating a fact is the same, just some may not want to do it because they are afraid of the sexist accusations. This is just a discussion, and an interesting one. Next time I will call women evil if in any form tv or real life I see one saying they're better at something than men. Like that list of things women are better at. And again most girls here are probably exceptions because they like chess. But they are exceptions, unfortunately, and it's not their fault. Do you want me to go on and on about what women are good at? But they can be very good at chess too, but who knows if the can compete with the men for the world championship. I would be happy to become a GM, even if not a world champion, wouldn't you? So don't get discouraged. I admire anyone who can get to NM, and women can do that. And women do good in sports against other women, even if they can't beat the men.

It's like a male super GM saying "I just want to give chess up because I can never be as good at a computer". But you can beat the ones at your level. We're comparing it to beating the best males of course. A 1600 girl is still a 1600, just as good as the 1600 boys. But may I wonder how there aren't as many? Guess not. I'm not as good as GM Kasparov and probably never will be, but I will still try to get as high as possible and have a lot of good games doing it, and make history to be the best player. Unfortunately that will probably never happen. Same for a woman world champion, unfortunately.

And I think it's important to note to say that girls generally aren't better than men, does not mean you yourself are inferior at chess, just that there aren't as many female players like you who are good. It doesn't mean a female IM sucks! She's good! But some aren't. Why should a female IM feel bad that other females aren't as good? She's an exception, and proud to be one! Saying that females can be good, just not a ton of them.

I apologize for the long post. Just please don't think I'm sexist just because I point out the 2500 thing and see more male gm's. It's not like it's an opinion, made up just to make females feel bad! I feel that everyone is against me because it's maybe mean to say that males are better at anything? If this was about who was better kasparov or fischer I wouldn't be judged as an asshole because I thought one way.

Women have better things to do.

Like?  Watching NFL football? :P

Yes, we women do have better things to do, but then we have to waste our time trying to ignore idiotic statement like that.

I'm at such a disadvantage here because it's "mean" to go aganst women just once. It's not about sex inferiority at all. Just tell me this: if there was strong evidence that women were worse than men, would a woman admit it? Or should I just be a gentleman and pretend that and assume that they are equal no matter what? People like you more grobe because your side is what women want to be true and people think to think the other way is pure evil and sexist and half of what I was doing was trying to say it's not.

The fact that there are fewer female GMs doesn't prove anything.  It's probably simply due to the fact that there are more men playing chess than women.  You have to consider the whole field of players before you make a statement like that.

You obviously didn't read my other posts, I have MUCH more than that. But I don't feel like repeating them, so everytime a new person comes they assume that's all I'm saying. Look at page 5. And 6.

I loudly demand cheese

*high fives NK* You da man!

I have discovered that there is no point in trying to prove that men are better than women, especially since it's so "evil" and there is never enough evidence. Most people here are biased against an opinion (based on some fact) no matter what because they think it's putting them down, in this case women. This is not the case, and I think it's pretty natural to question things since it's blatantly obvious that not many women compared to men play chess and I wonder why. I go against the "Not as many women play chess as men" idea because I think that not playing means not having the talent, and I don't see how that's incorrect but if someone could tell me that would be great. But again women shouldn't take that too personally, because if they are playing they are an exception, and they can still even get to grandmaster but if not one woman has ever been in the world championship you have to wonder. But instead of a discussion we have mostly people calling others sexist, which is plain wrong. Why should a woman feel bad about herself just because most of the other girls she knows are no good?

I'll address this since I'm the one who first used the word "sexist" in response to you.  If you go back and read you'll see that I said your arguements were based on "sexist anecdotes and conjecture".  I stand by that statement -- the most blatant example was the math ability reference, but it certainly wan't the only one.  It doesn't mean that discussing this from one side or the other is inherently sexist, just that some of the arguments put forth have been.

That may have been insensitive and I apologize but am I wrong? I'm just talking about the majority. Would I be wrong to say the majority of girls don't like math? More males like math because more of them have a better time understanding them. But as I said I'm not going on anymore, because it's pointless. Again, I can't see how if women were better (at least in modern times) there wouldn't be alot of them. What person who is good at chess refuses to play? All good chess players love the game unless they have been playing too many dull openings. But whatever. Should I just not talk about it because it's rude? But lets just say men and women are good at different things because of the slight differences in their brain. Do we agree on this?