I was gonna say Goonies never die. But whatever.
Statistical Analysis on Gender Difference
Sort:
btickler wrote:
Women are not worse at chess because they lack ability. Women are worse at chess because they understand the truth: playing chess is ultimately a waste of time, and spending all your time with boys/men competing against each other because of testosterone-fueled biological imperatives is just annoying after a while ;)...
True, time is better invested shopping and buying romance novels.
It's a fact that the best WGM's now would have real trouble with low 2600+ male opponents.
Like Fischer said, he could give a woman knight odds and still win.
The mean part of your argumentation, Yereslov , is that you INDIRECTLY (not openly, because you just have any scientific argument in favour of your standpoint) suggest that a woman just CAN'T be as good as a man in chess.
Yereslov wrote:
It's a fact that the best WGM's now would have real trouble with low 2600+ male opponents.
Like Fischer said, he could give a woman knight odds and still win.
"Like he said" is not proof. It's not even evidence. There are dozens of women GM's and IM's today who would make him look foolish for making such a claim. But having made the claim, Fischer would have made sure such games never took place.
Why is it so important for chess players, themselves, to so torture and contort every possible excuse for why a woman isn't World Champion? It could be easily accomplished by legislative fiat. After all, Brazilians are underrepresented in top level chess but you don't see anyone trying to invent excuses.
Mecking was one of my favorite players. His achilles heel seemed to be that he always wound up in time trouble but loads of interesting games.
Mecking was a great talent. Petrosian once said that he probably never will become world champion because he would have some lack of positional understanding.
Well, just one opinion... Remember what Kramnik said about Nakamura two/three years ago ? That he (N.) would never win a single game against him...
And look at Nakamura now: he has given us some pearls of positional play !
steve_bute wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
It's a fact that the best WGM's now would have real trouble with low 2600+ male opponents.
Like Fischer said, he could give a woman knight odds and still win.
"Like he said" is not proof. It's not even evidence. There are dozens of women GM's and IM's today who would make him look foolish for making such a claim. But having made the claim, Fischer would have made sure such games never took place.
I doubt they would make him look foolish, since Fischer had already done that to the likes of Larsen, Petrosian, Tal, and Spassky.
cleocamy wrote:
Why is it so important for chess players, themselves, to so torture and contort every possible excuse for why a woman isn't World Champion? It could be easily accomplished by legislative fiat. After all, Brazilians are underrepresented in top level chess but you don't see anyone trying to invent excuses.
Well, considering that Fischer despised Jews, I highly doubt he would have stopped by the Polgar's house had he known of their origins.
johnsmithson wrote:
Huh? Fischer never beat any of those people at knight odds.
I never said he did.
He claimed that the IM's and GM's of today would make Fischer look foolish.
schlechter55 wrote:
Mecking was a great talent. Petrosian once said that he probably never will become world champion because he would have some lack of positional understanding.
Well, just one opinion... Remember what Kramnik said about Nakamura two/three years ago ? That he (N.) would never win a single game against him...
And look at Nakamura now: he has given us some pearls of positional play !
Don't forget Gyala Breyer.
Chess is a waste if time, IF art and any work that does not make money is.
There are enough women playing chess very well or with passion, to make the claim that it is not the 'testosterone fight' that makes them not liking chess.
After all, there are different ways to play chess. Smylov is the best example. He was never a 'tiger' who hated his opponents.
He said himself, that he looks for the harmony (of the pieces) in chess.
If you see fotos of him sitting at the board, it looks like he smiles.
Also Tal was not a 'hater'. He was very respectful with all of his opponents.
schlechter55 wrote:
Chess is a waste if time, IF art and any work that does not make money is.
There are enough women playing chess very well or with passion, to make the claim that it is not the 'testosterone fight' that makes them not liking chess.
After all, there are different ways to play chess. Smylov is the best example. He was never a 'tiger' who hated his opponents.
He said himself, that he looks for the harmony (of the pieces) in chess.
If you see fotos of him sitting at the board, it looks like he smiles.
Also Tal was not a 'hater'. He was very respectful with all of his opponents.
How is chess an art if it can easily be grasped by a machine?
Art is limitless. Chess gives you a limited amount of options.
You do not have the freedom to be an individual.
schlechter55 wrote:
Data is one thing. The conclusion about (genetic, to be precise) ability another.
What if (and I claim this!) , in average, women stop earlier than men to 'take chess seriously', (meaning, women tend not to go to the club more than one time a week, not to spend more than 3 hours a week reading and analysing, they do not sit and spend 6 to 12 hours a week playing chess games on the internet etc., BUT MEN DO) ?
Yep, this is one possible theory, of dozens. They may be on average less obsessive people, or at least regarding games.
Yereslov wrote:
schlechter55 wrote:
Chess is a waste if time, IF art and any work that does not make money is.
There are enough women playing chess very well or with passion, to make the claim that it is not the 'testosterone fight' that makes them not liking chess.
After all, there are different ways to play chess. Smylov is the best example. He was never a 'tiger' who hated his opponents.
He said himself, that he looks for the harmony (of the pieces) in chess.
If you see fotos of him sitting at the board, it looks like he smiles.
Also Tal was not a 'hater'. He was very respectful with all of his opponents.
How is chess an art if it can easily be grasped by a machine?
Art is limitless. Chess gives you a limited amount of options.
You do not have the freedom to be an individual.
There are more possible chess games than elementary particles found in the universe.
The human brain cannot even grasp all the possibilities that are given during just one game.
Our brain understands chess not as a computational exercise. Many tools come into play: abstraction (understanding of a position by applying learned principles and forming new ones), and concretion (calculation of variants). It is thus a complex task, the creativeness, the surprise in seeking/finding the truth in unknown territory (once again, chess is not accessible by sheer calculus FOR US - I am not talking about a machine) makes it an art.
Yereslav, i am not telling anything new here.
schlechter55 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
schlechter55 wrote:
Chess is a waste if time, IF art and any work that does not make money is.
There are enough women playing chess very well or with passion, to make the claim that it is not the 'testosterone fight' that makes them not liking chess.
After all, there are different ways to play chess. Smylov is the best example. He was never a 'tiger' who hated his opponents.
He said himself, that he looks for the harmony (of the pieces) in chess.
If you see fotos of him sitting at the board, it looks like he smiles.
Also Tal was not a 'hater'. He was very respectful with all of his opponents.
How is chess an art if it can easily be grasped by a machine?
Art is limitless. Chess gives you a limited amount of options.
You do not have the freedom to be an individual.
There are more possible chess games than elementary particles found in the universe.
The human brain cannot even grasp all the possibilities that are given during just one game.
Our brain understands chess not as a computational exercise. Many tools come into play: abstraction (understanding of a position by applying learned principles and forming new ones), and concretion (calculation of variants). It is thus a complex task, the creativeness, the surprise in seeking/finding the truth in unknown territory (once again, chess is not accessible by sheer calculus FOR US - I am not talking about a machine) makes it an art.
Yereslav, i am not telling anything new here.
In a given positions there are only a few decent moves.
Finding out, what are the one to five reasonable moves in a given position exceeds the capability of a beginner.
Finding with no error which of these moves are bad exceeds the capability of people with rating lower than 2100.
Only GMs will with high percentage find a ranking of the move candidates that is close to the truth.
Playing 10 consecutive moves according to Houdini's first recommendation (rating higher than 3200, I heard) is highly rare even for a GM.
A game lasts perhaps for 40 moves in average.
Hence, playing just one single game with high precision is rare for a human, our (human's) seek for perfection will never come to an end.
Everyone of us (including GMs) will never be bored from chess, since we KNOW how much we still don't know.
Threads never die.
Neither do weeds.