Statistical Analysis on Gender Difference

Well, I did not repeat anything that was said in THIS thread before. I should perhaps not at all react to people who just troll. 

Some people  do not love chess (what can be more indication of that than #43 ?), hence some are here to enjoy that people take them serious...

Moreover, we are off-topic now.

Concerning women, I (apparently, we) have finished. Hence: Ciao.

...and the person who revived it is a 3 year-old too!

Coincidence?!?

Men are more competitive and they like it for the sake of pure rationality. So girls are less fascinated, I live in Amsterdam every Sunday I go to see the chess players playing on a gigantic square in max eeuweplein. Well I follow since years the matches, and every day thousands of tourist pass by.men play girls make pictures(emotions). There are exceptions? Sure but are exceptions. From a statistical point of view I can see every amsterdam tourist from every part of world with the limitations of the characteristics of Amsterdam tourist as mark as target. My point is the number of girls is minor from my view, and they usually I repeat usually having less testosterone manage with less calm the play. I know strong intermediate girls players and or they have a strong carachter that love competition or they started to love chess for cultural reasons as the father and the boyfriends that introduce them. What I noticed is that men that play in amaterdam have almost always a bag (for book, pc, ipad I suppose) so are kind of mental rational people usually

Well, chess is fun to play, but no one would take your claim seriously.

Calling chess players artists is laughable.

Just chipping in with something I haven't seen mentioned before beyond an occasional mention of Polgar having children.

Even avoiding the softer, societal arguments, women get a bit less time to study chess, and have more biological reasons for distraction from extreme pursuit of chess and other intensely focused life paths. Pregnancy and menstruation are two things that, at least, demand concrete, literal time and attention, are biologically rooted (no sociology-based speculation) and also affect emotions and hormones.

The more women get pregnant during their chess career, the more heavily it will affect the grand table of all registered ratings, particularly at the very highest end of the bell curve and not so much at the very lowest. Menstruation is more subtle, but it is one thing that males simply don't have to deal with, stealing at least a tiny bit of literal time per month to physically deal with it, and almost certainly *some* psychological effect, *some* distraction.

In a large enough population, any such slight, systematic advantage or disadvantage becomes reliable when looking at the averages, and even a 1-2% reliable effect becomes incredibly visible when looking "up close" at quantified performance, even if it feels like nothing at all to the individual who is subject to these tiny percentages.

This might be a much smaller part of the puzzle than the major "soft" arguments about male hormones / motivation / aggression / competitiveness along with societal arguments and the touchy "types of intelligence" topic, but it should be easily enough isolated from anything that's too heavily charged with opinions.

Good point. If we would live in a less patriarchalic, less hasty, less competitive world, where people enjoy to help each other, that 'biological disturbance' can be leveled.

(Today, a woman with a good helping husband, for whom emancipation and equality are not just words, with a caring family, and with a job where the comfort of the employees really matters, is much better off with any demanding task - such as , for instance, chess on IM or GM level is.)

You must have skimmed my post and misunderstood, it has nothing to do with patriarchy. And I'd hope nobody has visions of "leveling biological disturbances", whatever that means! It sounds ominous.

I dont know why people always overreact. I ensure you , bobstew, I fully agreed with you. I was , with no doubt possible, meaning that biological disturbance means the hormanal changes, the pregnancy, etc.

Also Leveling was 100 b% clear. It meant a woman just needs help by her side (men get, women insufficiently), and THEN the problems are not a hindrance to reach  highest level in chess.

Why do you deliberately misunderstand ?

I am mad now, I cannot talk to people who are so vain.

This thread is about as artistic as finger painting by a three year old.

Same age as the thread, too.

There are no good collaborations when it comes to art.

Why are we fighting each other when Yereslob is still lurking?

Art allows the individual to express his individuality.

Chess is a game devoted to the ego, but imagination really plays no role.

Your options are limited if your aim is to win.

there he is again.

There you are again...

Chess is fun, but calling it art is misleading. It is an insult to actual artists.

It is an interesting question whether chess can be considered an art when it's a game played within the margins of a conclusive score, and a computer is superior to humans in arriving at a positive score? Does it demean art to call a game art? Isn't art supposed to be a human expression which a computer is incapable of performing?

Or is calling something "art" just an opinion from a spectator, just like saying "I like this", or, "I love this"? I think it's more like that. In philosophy, there has been the idea that there is no such thing as an artist. There are painters who paint canvasses, but the spectator attaches value to the painting by liking it, loving it, thinking about it. The spectator "creates" art.

I take it most philosophers can't paint.

I don't know?

As a social scientist, we should apply for a grant to do a double blind study on philosophers and artiness. That should keep me busy till I retire.

Are you unsatisfied with the position that art is created by the spectator?