Boys are better chess players than girls

why do people who are not even better than half the women on this website bother to start these topics?  It's so funny.  Does it make you feel better when you look in the mirror in the morning to think that women are beneath you at something?  

Let's not take this post seriously. This is just to instigate an argument.

When you say "levels" what do you mean? The amount of men and women who play chess? Those levels aren't random.

Let's say that there are 60 men in the world and 60 women. 120 is the total population. If there are 10 people who are skilled enough to play at the GM level in each gender, but 20 out of 60 men play and only 5 out of 60 women play, it is MUCH more likely that the 10 could-be GM-level men would be among the 20 than some of the 10 GM-level women being among the 5. If all 120 people played chess, than each gender would be equally skilled. Capishe now?

Boys probably are at the moment, but girls and boys can be the same.

When you are stereotyped, you act a different way.  If someone says you're going to do horrible on something, you think you're going to do horrible, and you do worse than you would have done.

Also, it doesn't matter how many girls and boys there are (which is about even), but how many actually try chess.  If there's 100 boys and 1000 girls, and all 100 boys play chess while only 10 girls play chess, boys will probably dominate the game.

China is not dominating chess because I don't think the game is as popular there ass it is elsewhere.

So, the stereotype is true, but girls can be as good as boys if they are told they can and chess is no longer considered a boy dominated game.

Pretty much what the guy on top said.

Well, it's not fair to make fun of 12 year olds, and we should get a count of the number of men and women on this site to see if that is true.

No, you're not getting what I'm saying. Women are not at the top because more men play chess. When more men play chess, there's more likelihood for a male GM to be discovered than a female GM to be discovered in a much smaller group of chess-playing women.

I am not sure how to get this through to you.

Have you ever taken a statistics course?

However, the most density can be found in those who continue to insist that women are not as good as men at chess.

haha.  turkey, you so crazy!

Thanks for failing to address any points made and thus giving up the discussion. you lost

I think I see what Rising is saying. The ability of a chess player is not randomly determined. Players are either able to achieve a high level of play or they aren't. The argument is, because there are no women at that level, that the men are just plain better. Having more players may or may not contribute to this, but the point still holds.

Throughout history, there has never been a known point where the top chess player was a woman or even came very close. Judit Polgar is widely considered to be the best woman player of all time. She started play at a very young age along with her two sisters and even they were unable to get to the World Champion level. So based on this data, men are better chess players than women.

I won't try to argue that a woman could never win the world championship, but based on history to this point, men have always been better at the top.

The only one living in ignorance here is you. Not even about the male/female/chess debate, but you can't understand that you're wrong when presented with cold, hard stats.

I'm not going to try to come up with any more points because I've exhausted the debate. We've already presented all that is needed to explain why your argument is wrong. I'm too tired of trying to explain to try any more.

But you're right, the top male GM is better than the top female GM. That's a fact. We've already talked about why that fact is and you refuse to listen. Have a good time living in your ignorance.

So, the argument is: Men are better because there are only men at the top. Why are there only men at the top? because they are better. Why are they better? because there are only men at the top.

Did you mean: circular reasoning

Well why else would someone be at the top if it isn't because they are better? Garry Kasparov was at the top because he was the best, correct? I'm not saying the men are the best because they are at the top, they are just at the top because they are the best. Why are they the best? I don't know why. However, them being at the top obviously points towards them being better than the women.

Oh no! Another one!

Please read the rest of the forums to have your ideas discredited. ;D Perhaps you can understand why men aren't really better than women, as these facts you base your arguments upon infer.

Okay, let me try something different. I'm not conclusively saying that men are better than women at chess. However, although you might like to think otherwise, all of the evidence up to this point, shows that men are stronger players. This may or may not be due to the fact that there are more men playing. While chess seems to be a game purely of the mind, for all we know there may be some genetic difference that allows men to be superior in this one instance. I'm not saying that men are smarter than women, but chess is not solely based on intelligence. My point is simply that, until an example proves otherwise, the best female chess player has never been at the same level as the top male chess player. Until this occurs, the conclusion to be drawn is that men are simply better.

So let me summarize your post: "I'm not saying the men are the best because they are at the top, ... However, them being at the top obviously points towards them being better than the women." :-)

By the way, a circular reasoning isn't bad per se, but the problem is that you beforehand already conclude 'men are better' and then use that as an argument to support the whole reasoning, while you haven't proved men are better yet.

I have nothing against females and I believe that they are intellectually on the same level as males. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that females can win at the HIGHEST level of chess. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that the evidence to this point hasn't supported it.

The "statistical" approach that given equal numbers, and opportunity, females would establish parity even at the top of the chess world is not a fact in evidence, as the legal types say.

The differences in male/female brains may account for some innate chess superiority. I don't think this has been scientifically established though?

If some hyper-male trait like spatial reasoning were fundamentally controlling in chess, then men would be the best of the best, as has been the case up to now.

Chess may not be so simple though. Mathematics and music have their idiot savants, but chess does not. In my casual understanding, this indicates that chess is cognitively more complex than the respected fields of math and music, at least in terms of performance. So, no characteristic and innate male ability would be sufficient to guarantee male dominance if both male and female populations were equal in number and opportunity and culture (I'm trying to account for females tending to find other things to do than chess, eventually).

Well, that's my take on it. I'm unaware of any research that really answers this question. It just may be a function of culture that men dominate chess, not biology.

What % of women who take up chess reach the GM title ? What % of men ? Yes, overall many more men play chess than women but if they are equal shouldnt roughly the same % from both groups reach the GM level ?  Do they ? Is there any board game in which both males and females participate that women dominate ?  Checkers?  Backgammon ?  Shogi ? Go ?