Carlsen, Caruana & Yifan: a ratings analysis

No you can also understand things that are wrong.

"The capital of England is Sydney" is an easy sentence to understand even though it is wrong. People get what it means and they answer "No you are wrong, it is London. Sydney is in Australia".

In YOUR model where "Understanding something is the best reason to believe it" one should then believe Sydney is the capital of Australia because you understand the sentence lol.

Trysts,

Thank you for taking the time to read some of the links I provided. 

You have used the term "pattern recognition" in numerous posts. I am guessing you have an idea of what that means. Do you at least agree that chess is a game about spatial patterns and that from what you have read the scientific community accepts the statement  "Numerous studies have provided evidence that both human and nonhuman males reliably outperform females on tasks that require spatial ability."

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

"pattern recognition"

Why do we ooh and ahh over words like "prodigy" and "pattern recognition"?

Could you not recognize a pattern which ends up in a complete an utter losing game?  I imagine Michael Adams and Vladimir Kramnik feel this way right now.  Maybe pattern recognition isn't so good.

Anyway, this is deep thoughts, not with Jack Handey. 

(Cool photo of Kramnik below)

Cooler photo of Kramnik. :)

From what you provided and some other things I read to try to understand what you provided, there is nothing I would know of to have me disbelieve your quoted statement:) But this kind of data is not something I easily understand. I look at pattern recognition in chess being for me based on habit of play producing a familiarity with geometrical patterns which allows me to concentrate upon areas of the board in different positions rather than considering everything on the board. Since computers are the best chess players, I'm guessing that pattern recognition may be just our(humans) way of playing chess, because I'm thinking the chess computers don't have to do that? I don't know. But since I can do this and other women can do this, and we can do it just as well as men, then I think it's reasonable to think that when it comes to the strongest chess players the differences are not about sex, but rather individual talent desire, environment, etc.

"Understanding" is an ambiguous word which probably would get you to ask about what I mean by it. But you would rather enjoy yourself it looks like.

"I'm guessing that pattern recognition may be just our(humans) way of playing chess, because I'm thinking the chess computers don't have to do that? I don't know. But since I can do this and other women can do this, and we can do it just as well as men, then I think it's reasonable to think that when it comes to the strongest chess players the differences are not about sex, but rather individual talent desire, environment, etc." ~Trysts

Trysts, I understand that it takes time to really change a person's mind. You may be familiar with cognitive dissonance.

There is no current evidence that women perform equally as well as men in chess. Just the opposite! The reasons are mostly cultural (about 96% according to statisticians), but there are also physical differences.

I didn't say that women are incapable of playing chess. It is a more difficult task for females to play chess at the highest levels than it is for men. Those reasons are mostly cultural, but there is also a very real physical obstacle for women to overcome as well.

What I don't know, and what nobody knows exactly, is how great that physical obstacle is. Statistically, the physical difference may only account for 4% of the current difference between men and women, the rest are all cultural factors. If that is true, then we are only talking about the very most elite players in the world. We will probably see women competing for the World Championship and perhaps even winning it in the next 20 years or so. 

Remember what they said about Ginger Rogers compared to Fred Astaire!

Ginger Rogers was absolutely amazing! When you watch what she did in heels and those dresses, just wow! You should watch those two again. I've seen every movie they made together and some even numerous times. Great stuff

This...

There is no current evidence that women perform equally as well as men in chess. Just the opposite!

...should never mean a thing to women. Never.

8D nice!

Yes and you believe females and males perform identically for no reason whatsoever.

Saying your reason is a sort of understanding which cannot be described with normal human words is just evasion. "I have the data right there, unfortunately they are written on invisible paper".

Can you not yourself see it makes you into the darkest of irrationalists what you just ignore 150 years of sciense without having any reason for it what so ever?

How about this: You have very little understanding in my eyes, but you probably think you have great understanding. Do you see how we may have different ideas upon what the word, "understanding", means for us? For instance, I never said that males and females perform identically. I said that males have nothing special about them which makes them better chess players. It's individuals, in spite of their sex, which make them perform at high levels in chess. What makes up these special individuals could be termed talent, motivation, desire, support, love of the game, obsessiveness, fantastic memories, etc., unique to the individual regardless of their sex. 

 I believe that such interpretations of the ratings gap presently between male and female chess players as being something special about the male sex in general, is not just insulting to women, but it is also insulting to those few individuals who have worked hard to achieve high performances in chess, both male and female individuals. 

Do you see? You don't get credit for the high achievers in this world. They do.

OK so now you changed your mind and males and female arent identical anymore. So what are the differences in yout opinion?

Science says for instance spatial ability, but i would what to hear the insight of your superiour understanding which no doubt is much better than the stuff they come up with in Harvard and MIT.

And off crouse chessplayers are good as individuals, noone states the opposite. Men and women also have their specific height as individuals. This does not change that male height average is higher than the female. Men have biological advantage in for instance weight lifting over women, nevertheless the weightlifting champion must of course also have motivation, love of the thing and all the other things you mention.

Jesus, I never said that males and females are identical in anything! I have no idea where you got that from? And why do so many of you keep using physical analogies for a mental game?? 

I would love to continue this entertaining discussion with you now, but I have to go to work. See ya':)

Visual-spatial intelligence is not only "pattern recognition." And neither pattern recognition nor visual-spatial intelligence are the only traits required for chess. So even if men and women were equally capable of pattern recognition, and visual-spatial intelligence, that doesn't explain everything about their relative chess performance.

True, so it's probably best to look at other factors for individual performance in chess instead of focusing on a difference between males and females as a sex. Social reasons seem like the better option to focus upon, perhaps to the lament of individual statisticians with an agenda;)

I also believe in the power of the individual, but it seems you would have us do away with the social sciences. I'm not sure the best option is to abandon all attempts at generalization. But if it helps you play better chess or do anything else, feel free to disregard the general observation...

Carlsen just scored 7/9, a full point ahead of a field that included five others in the top ten. His result is truly amazing. What's more amazing is that nobody is even remotely surprised!

 But, under the theory that there has been rampant inflation over the past 8 years, his "real" performance is about 40 points lower than his best. According to this rating inflation theory, Carlsen has not improved at all since at least 2010. In fact, his rating has not kept up with inflation, so he must actually be playing worse!

Raise your hand if you believe that!

"Mikhail Moseeievich was right. He's always right". 

No, I guess I really don't understand you, because I never thought what I was saying would imply abandoning the social sciences? Maybe I find it impossible for me to believe that this little game is more suited to men than women since I play it, enjoy it, and don't think either sex is "hardwired" to be a master at it. I think that way of looking at it is mistaken, that's all:)