Carlsen, Caruana & Yifan: a ratings analysis

You're making an unfair assumption. I find no joy in discovering that Yifan is less likely to make it to the top. Besides, this conclusion is based on the assumption that all players progress at a rate that is similarly related to their innate skill. If one player finds a method of learning that clearly surpasses that of the others, they may then suddenly progress higher and at a faster rate. It's not very likely, but it's possible. Here, the top players are at a disadvantage, since there are no stronger players from which they could learn.

"this conclusion is based on the assumption that all players progress at a rate that is similarly related to their innate skill"

The rules of chess are not innate.  If they had any innate skill, they would suck more like us at chess.  They progress because they train.

"top players are at a disadvantage, since there are no stronger players from which they could learn"

Not at all.  I used to play a friend, he would win.  Then I would learn to beat him, then I was stronger.  This ping pong effect made us both stronger.

You are assuming too much and then shopping for data to support your assumptions instead of using samples which represent a population.

This is BRILLIANT! You are drawing conclusions about gender performance based on TWO examples! 

Absolutely BRILLIANT! 

I don't believe anyone is equal at pattern recognition. I'm saying that neither sex has something special to make it more inclined to pattern recognition:)

Why do you think that?

Do you think for instance that if we compared 1 million men and 1 million men in some test for pattern recognition, the scores for both sexes would be identical, say 76,938392 ?

What's the reason for your belief in total identical performances?

Trysts, you may want to review the scientific research into this. It may change your mind.

I'll have to quote myself

"I don't believe anyone is equal at pattern recognition."

Men probably don't like lopsided boobs.  However, a woman probably doesn't care if a man's balls are lopsided.  Sorry, I think pattern recognition depends on the final outcome.

If we gave women more rewards for their performance (ex: same salary) they might perform better.

Ahh forget it, they would want a higher salary than men. 

Can you explain the scientific research to me in your own words?

So you just believe it for no reason because you like to believe in it?

I believe it because I can understand it. I understand also that some people wish men had special chess powers to account for the chess ratings gap. But I believe the reasons are social for that gap. 

I can summarize it to some extent. Males consistently outperform females in tasks requiring spatial pattern recognition. This has been documented in humans and nonhumans. My understanding is that this is most likely caused by hormonal differences which affect brain development. 

I strongly recommend you read the scientific literature for yourself and see whether they change your mind.

Here's a few articles to get you started:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811905007603

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661302019046

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0306453091900766

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X98914738

I don't believe dinosaurs existed.

T-Rex never existed ?!  

Reb wrote:

SilentKnighte5 wrote:

I don't believe dinosaurs existed.

T-Rex never existed ?!  

T. Rex the band existed.

"Because I can understand it" is no reason to believe in anything.

I guess everybody undertstands what is the meaning of "female brains = male brains" and "female brains not = male brains". Doesnt mean you believe both of them lol.

No. I'm not assuming anything, I'm making conclusions from the data that I've examined. It would be nice to repeat this analysis for all the players who have a registered FIDE rating, but that would take an immense amount of time and would involve further variables, one of which is that not all players who register a FIDE rating are professional players. It only makes sense to investigate those players who are giving chess their undivided attention, which the top-rated players of both genders are doing.

Besides, what assumptions are you talking about? The only assertions I've made in this thread based on the data I've presented are the following:

1) Wei Yi is a likely contender for the world championship in about ten years' time;

2) At this rate, Hou Yifan will never reach the top 10, and neither will any other female competitor whom I've included in the study (the top ten females).

Please note that this includes nothing about gender performance in general. If you think there are other female rising stars, please name them and I will process their data. I wouldn't even have discovered Wei Yi if it hadn't been for someone else's comment in this thread. The reason is that these "future stars" are still lower on the top players' list, and I simply don't have the time to go through hundreds of names and process everyone's data.

"No. I'm not assuming anything, I'm making conclusions from the data that I've examined."

Wow, the fallacies in that statement.  You are collecting data based on your assumptions.  If you want to throw all colored marbles on the floor, and then only pick up the red ones and say all the marbles are red then live in your bliss.  Ignorance does.

Sorry it took so long for me to read those, but I didn't know some of the words. And I really don't understand too much of that. Poor little mice

So it's pretty hard for me to know what the tests meant, how they were performed, how they're being interpreted, etc. I can't come to any conclusions about whether or not these examples in anyway contradict what I said previously about pattern recognition performance for chess being based upon individuals and not on sex. Sorry:)

What? Understanding something is the best reason to believe it. Of course you never asked how I understand something. And it's not based upon whether or not I like it. At least I hope it isn't;)