Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

Well in chess, they are less successful as a group. Perhaps you meant, they have the same capacity to be successful (in chess) as men?

"But you're covering small examples when talking about women's results in chess. It's the same as Americans playing Go."

It's not at all like Americans playing go. Many Americans may not even know this game exists, let alone the rules. In fact I only learned the rules months ago, and have probably forgotten them. I had to learn them online and I'd probably have to search to find a Go set.

Chess, on the other hand, is a game virtually everyone knows about, at least in the US. Even if they don't know the rules, they know what it is on a basic level. And men and women have that same access to the game. Chess sets are incredibly easy to find, it's easy to find someone who knows the rules and teach you, there are chess books at the bookstore, etc etc. It's not like Americans and go.

If I grew up with go instead of chess, then I would probably have been trying to get good at go in the same way I have been trying to get good at chess. I just knew chess was a complex board game and I could try to move up in the ranks. I didn't even know what go was.

"@Elubas: Could you summarize, within a couple paragraphs, what exactly are you trying to say? I suppose you do understand that increasing the font's size makes it much more difficult to read your ideas as well."

I was responding to your individual points. I used quotation marks for the parts you said, and I responded to those parts. And the text thing is not my fault, sir: when I am copying and pasting your dialogue, which is not in the usual font, it doesn't let me change back into the normal font, the font that I'm using now.

"Which I already replied to, stating that there are insufficient number of women playing chess as to rely on statistics to make a reliable comparison"

And I responded to that, continuing the conversation. My response is in the post that I made, so you should probably look at that post if you want to see how I responded to you. It's early in the post.

You said that the "rules" of each group are different. No, they're exactly the same. That's like saying you can't compare whether oranges are more sour than lemons based on taking the stats of each because oranges are a different group than lemons. Of course they are, we would want them to be. Yes, women are under different circumstances than men, but as a statistical group they are just a group. What you are talking about is a possible explanation for why the statistics are different for men and women. You are saying, the stats could be this way for reasons unrelated to women's (as a whole) abilities, or something like that. And that's why I said you were making a social explanation, not a statistical one.

"I already gave the case of northern Europe countries, where women aren't second grade citizens, and there's no difference, while countries like China, where women are culturally second grade citizens, are ruling nowadays."

Sure, that's a valid piece of counter-evidence. It doesn't mean that chess isn't more associated with men than women in those countries. Even in places where women are treated well, surely, fashion and beauty is more associated with women, and math stuff is more associated with men? Preconceived notions persist.

? ...   ?   ...  ?  ... .   hmmm...  ?    

simple.  

because 

women 

are 

smarter 

than men.

self-reenforcing feedback loop

"You do realize you're contradicting yourself, don't you? If your're seeking an explanation in societies' rules, then both groups need to be different.  If both are the same, then you should be going after a biological explanation. "

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I know quite well what my statements imply. The groups, men and women, are different groups regardless of what explanation you use... for one thing, men have penises and women have vaginas...

So I'm not really sure of what difference you're talking about. I would use a biological explanation if it did a good job of explaining the situation, and same for the social explanation, or I might use both. I'm not sure what this has to do with the groups being the same or different... you seem to be derailing the conversation in talking about that.

"That counter you gave, about commonalities, is clearly an opinion without data to support it."

Yet it's very likely to be true. It's very likely that commonalities like that tend to hold. It's great to use data when it helps you, but it's not great to pretend that certain things are hard to reasonably determine without data, when they aren't.

"Meaning, those three countries are proof that mere statistics and societies' values don't offer valid explanations."

No, it's not proof. Because women still perform worse than men in those countries, right? That's still something that we can theorize about. Who knows what random factors could cause differences in the disparity. It might not be about rights at all. But it could still be societal. Societal conceptions of men and women still likely exist everywhere, and, look at that, it correlates with different amounts of women playing chess, just as it correlates with different amounts of men wearing dresses.

It's a complex issue. It could be all sorts of societal factors at play. Maybe both men and women are taught chess in countries where women aren't valued -- that could help a sexist country with results. The world contains all sorts of variables.

It seems that people think that other people are contradicting themselves, without really critically thinking about whether that's actually the case. It's often pretty unclear what a person's claims are. I might say that the groups are different, then I say the word "same" somewhere four paragraphs later, and suddenly I'm contradicting myself, even if the examples used are completely disconnected.

So, sure, if you use the word "different" ambiguously, or any word you want ambiguously, then probably half of what everyone says is a contradiction.

"Moreover, the beauty of the scientific method is that, when making a theory, the test doesn't need to explain why or how it should be, but only to proof the falsehood in the predictions. Which is why I didn't use statistics nor social explanations, as it would be fairly easy to bring scenarios where the predictions wouldn't match the evidence. As in China, Georgia and Ukraine. All different populations, different rights for women, different cultures, where numbers don't match your predictions. Meaning, those three countries are proof that mere statistics and societies' values don't offer valid explanations."

?   

wow.   

that is a mouthful.... but?  makes no sense...  ?  

read this quote carefully, sit back... ??  and then...

scratch yer head...  ?   

and rememba'.....   ''those three counties are 'proof' that 'mere statistics', and 'societies values' don't offer valid explanations.''  

thank you for this profound insight?  

amen

When I said they are "exactly the same," I was talking about the vague notion of "rules" you were talking about. You said women were under different "rules" than men because they live under different circumstances or something. I was saying, men and women are different, but they are the same in that you can take groups of them and compare them. The fact that women are different doesn't mean they have different rules, it just serves as an explanation for why they would perform differently.

"Rules" have nothing to do with it. That seems like some kind of term you made up. All statistical groups are just that, statistical groups. There is no "rule" governing them. All you have are stats, and then you can come up with an explanation for the existence of those stats.

What am I supposed to think, that there's a 50-50 chance that I'm supposed to wear a dress in China because I haven't done a study there about social norms?

blah.

blah.

blah. 

page after page of men..  

explaining 

women.   

scientifically.  

chesswonks  sure are funny creatures

sort of like... giant skinbags full of hot air...  and confusion.  

do like yer pal... and get a dress, and put it on.

then

go to China and do some research.. 

then ..

report back to chess.com..

Men are also explaining men, here. Which you leave out. It's not about hating men or women. It's about just making whatever observation comes to you and seeing what it means. I can make observations about bananas and people are ok with it, maybe they're even interested, but if I make observations about a man or woman, an observable thing, suddenly, I want to kill that thing I'm observing or some messed up interpretation like that.

I'm just saying, you want to turn this into a war. You want to make it so that, oh, men are against women or women are against men. We can't just harmlessly talk about each other anymore. I guess it always has to be war. You just don't want discussion to be peaceful, do you? You want it to be political. Because that's somehow a good thing.

How did this thread become a music video television channel? 

There are fewer women than men....It's that simple I think!

May be for the same reason very few women succeed in Science. One may state that they are clever enough not to spend time on chess, but not on Science (in my opinion science is more interesting). My guess is that women in general do not like hard work, including brain work.