Could it be that women miss some kind of quality that is benificial to play good chess?
And a fact that might be related to it: in the forty years I play now I did very seldom encounter homosexuals in the chess world, and if I did, they were not very strong.
Can it have something to do with competitiveness?
*Note to self: hoynck is a genius*
Men are smarter than women, and less women play chess. It is actually proven that after age 14, boys are likely to be smarter than their female counterparts, it's not sexist, it's life! It would only make sense for a women playing chess to have to do less, just shows how our society caters to make girls lives easier. It sickens me.
What does that have to do with anything, I understand than any good women could beat me. What I am saying is that a WGM is basically an IM, it's a joke if you ask me. I don't see why a WGM cant be equal to a GM. I am trying to espose this disguisting society, which makes girls lives easier.
Any "good" woman?! I could beat you with my eyes closed
*Note to self: Another genius*
Men seem to be more prone to be serial-killers. Not very smart. In fact, more on the level of a virus in smarts.
Men seem to be more prone to be serial-killers. Not very smart. In fact, more on the level of a virus in smarts.
Exactly. So scoring 2% better at tasks like mentally rotating a cube don't mean much when predicting success at other tasks which involve many factors. And even if chess=intelligence you can't assume scoring higher on an intelligence test equates to doing other tasks well that are intelligent... e.g. serial killers.
Men score slightly worse on empathy tests? Does this predict a tendency for violent murder? Of course not, it's just a slight difference. It's not like they show a picture of a crying baby and the women says "aww, it's hungry" and the man says "I feel like murder" lol. So when the woman rotates the cube, she's actually doing it correctly. It's not like she's mentally superimposing a pony on top of the cube...
Take for example chess, which is a complex task. Factors like study, availability of strong local players (for study or coaching), memory, frequency of tournament play, etc. will determine, say 99% of the player's strength. And differences due to gender I suspect would be so small as to be statistically negligible.
Men are smarter than women, and less women play chess. It is actually proven that after age 14, boys are likely to be smarter than their female counterparts, it's not sexist, it's life! It would only make sense for a women playing chess to have to do less, just shows how our society caters to make girls lives easier. It sickens me.
I can't believe this. I remember being 14, when myself and all the other boys did far more completely stupid things then any of the girls. No way were we the smarter sex.
Also, if it's proven please provide the link.
Yeah, if you want to compare the general intelligence between genders the teenage years are not a good age for us guys lol.
Men seem to be more prone to be serial-killers. Not very smart. In fact, more on the level of a virus in smarts.
and cooks,
they do cook pretty well; Jamie Oliver, Curtis Stone,
Looks like we have some male stereotypes cooking here too (no pun). Kind of ironic since some are arguing the point of women's titles is to get rid of stereotypes.
Looks like we have some male stereotypes cooking here too (no pun). Kind of ironic since some are arguing the point of women's titles is to get rid of stereotypes.
Women develop earlier / mature faster so I don't think that's too unfair of me to say in post #144. It doesn't mean all boys do stupid stuff. I turned down the opportunity to do a lot of dumb stuff myself, and eventually found a group of male friends that weren't into vandalising / stealing things. So yeah, individuals vary.
The violent crimes things is true though (#142), for what it's worth.
Sure, as long as you don't apply it to the entire group, as stereotypes are defined.
I agree, wafflemaster.
{For comment #143}
Our worlds our much smaller than the world of statistics. We are only going to be close with a few people in life, and we'll find ourselves drawn to those men and women who we will respect in every way, if lucky. In our small worlds we'll find that men and women have unique intelligence, unique to that particular individual.
What kind of bizarre insecurities would allow one to not only think, but to pronounce that they have more potential to succeed in chess for example, because a man from India worked his life to succeed in that endeavor? Or that a woman from Hungary working her entire life to succeed in chess somehow means that I am smarter than half the population? No one here did what that Indian man and Hungarian woman did.
These theads certainly let us know who are the geniuses at Chess.com
Essentially all this data is extremely crappy but better than nothing info. If the only piece of information you had about a 16 year old teen was that she was female -- fine, your bet that she is less likely to act like an idiot than some random 16 year old boy can perhaps be made with more confidence than if you knew absolutely nothing about the two people. But with such a small amount of information, you can not act like you can be anywhere close to knowing the truth about what will really happen.
Well boys, as a group, mature at a later age than girls, as a group. Girls taller than boys in 5/6th grade? Don't blame me blame the endocrine system 
[Edit] How they act probably has more to do with how well their parents were able to raise them. I'm not trying to say boys are less moral or less intelligent or something.
Yes, physically I agree that is pretty reliable. But I'm also talking about decision making and mental maturity too.
Hm, regarding the violent crimes thing: The point is not whether or not men and women behave/are different in our current society, but that those differences are largely a result of the way gender is socially constructed.
Violent behavior is largely considered "manly".
So yeah, the way gender expectations work is not unambigiously good for all men. It does tend to privilege men in many areas, including math/science/chess. Somewhat responding to Elubas earlier post, being constantly surrounded by expectations that, by virtue of being women, they'll do worse at certain things does affect performance.
Numerous studies back this up. See for example serpmedia.org/MSAN/motivation/McGlone_2006.pdf
where priming women to think on their identity as women immediately reduces their performance in spatial reasoning tests.
So, constant expectations that you'll suck at, for example, chess, due to your gender is quite likely to actually impact performance. Stereotypes matter.
Stereotypes matter, but I think they shouldn't. Maybe it is just inevitable that it will impact your performance, but in some ways I think it is simply irrational to think that if you have a 2000 rating and you are a woman, that you have less of a chance against a man with a 2000 rating. And that example implies that the whole thing is just so specific to the individual -- how the top 15 is doing has nothing to do with any amateur chess player.
Again, maybe this is just in our genes, to react to stereotypes a certain way inevitably, but I am more optimistic and feel like it can't be right that we are truly doomed to such an irrational behavior. We are able to fight most irrational behaviors with some work; why not one more. Surely there is one woman out there who is not affected -- I don't think it is impossible to be largely unaffected; maybe it's rare to be, but it's hard for me to believe it's impossible.
"So, constant expectations that you'll suck at, for example, chess, due to your gender is quite likely to actually impact performance."
Well, ok, but I would argue women shouldn't expect to suck solely due to their gender despite no female becoming world champion.
Well, I agree it would be awesome if people could just shrug off all negative stereotypes about themselves and be completely unaffected by them. But it seems to me we should design things based on how people actually are and not how we wish they were.
For better or worse it does seem that most people's opinions of whether they can be succesful at a given activity is influenced by whether they see people similar to themselves being successful at that activity. And thus having most succesful chess players be men turns women of chess (on aggregate) which in turn increases the likelihood of most successful chess players being men.
How do we break this vicious cycle? Highlighting the achievements of women in chess seems reasonable...
Yes, ideally we would eventully reach a point when that's not needed, but in the mean time...
Oh, God... do you ask each of your opponents what their sexual orientation is?