I'm not sure what you mean by "favoring"
I don't mean "favoring" in a negative conntation, but the fact that, since very many more higher rated players are men, and the FIDE rating average include more higher and less lower rated players than women (although there are many players, men and women, lower than 1500, maybe the great majority - these players aren't really represented.), there might be something going on that isn't reflected on the surface.
"there might be something going on that isn't reflected on the surface."
I guess it depends on what you want to know. What we know is that a higher % of males get to 1900 and above than females. For some purposes that information may be useful, others not.
It all comes back to the idea that the question "Are men better at chess than women" depends on the group in question. Among FIDE players, the answer is yes, of course. In an elementary school, maybe not -- I certainly don't think we can use FIDE averages to generalize to something like this.
"there might be something going on that isn't reflected on the surface."
I guess it depends on what you want to know. What we know is that a higher % of males get to 1900 and above than females. For some purposes that information may be useful, others not.
It all comes back to the idea that the question "Are men better at chess than women" depends on the group in question. Among FIDE players, the answer is yes, of course. In an elementary school, maybe not -- I certainly don't think we can use FIDE averages to generalize to something like this.
Really? What's the percentage? I'm honestly curious. One person said a while back that as far as percentages there are actually a higher percentage of female titled players.
waffllemaster wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"there might be something going on that isn't reflected on the surface."
I guess it depends on what you want to know. What we know is that a higher % of males get to 1900 and above than females. For some purposes that information may be useful, others not.
It all comes back to the idea that the question "Are men better at chess than women" depends on the group in question. Among FIDE players, the answer is yes, of course. In an elementary school, maybe not -- I certainly don't think we can use FIDE averages to generalize to something like this.
Really? What's the percentage? I'm honestly curious. One person said a while back that as far as percentages there are actually a higher percentage of female titled players.
either way, no matter what side the percentage favors, arguments can be made for why one sex dedicates themselves and who has the best opportunities, yada, yada, yada...but taking it into consideration does have some merit.......
Oh, well, I just assumed based on the higher medians -- I figured that's what it meant. If half of male FIDE players are above 1900, but less than half of females are above 1900 (half of them are above about 1800 according to the median), that seemed like a correct conclusion.
Of course I don't know about the USCF but I figure if you're 1800+ USCF you can be considered a pretty serious player.
"One person said a while back that as far as percentages there are actually a higher percentage of female titled players."
Hmm, that would be an interesting fact. It's not impossible for there to be a higher percentage of female titled players but a lower percentage of female players 1900+.
For example, if all females above 1900 were titled, then a little less than 50% of women in FIDE would be titled. Even though less than 50% of women were 1900+, if the males that were above 1900 were mostly 2000-2200, non-master, then there could still be more female titled players percentage wise.
Yeah, we don't have enough info in any case. And as long as the rate of female players coming into chess is increasing then this is something of a useless argument to build in the present IMO. i.e. wait a decade and you're more or less guaranteed to have better data.
To me it simply suggests that more men stick with it to get to the higher tournament levels. Like I said it's possible for men and women to be equal early on, but the men probably go farther with it while the women may be more likely to stop. Seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.
Especially considering that we both probably agree you don't really need talent to get to expert level.
Oh, well, I just assumed based on the higher medians -- I figured that's what it meant. If half of male FIDE players are above 1900, but less than half of females are above 1900 (half of them are above about 1800 according to the median), that seemed like a correct conclusion.
Of course I don't know about the USCF but I figure if you're 1800+ USCF you can be considered a pretty serious player.
"One person said a while back that as far as percentages there are actually a higher percentage of female titled players."
Hmm, that would be an interesting fact. It's not impossible for there to be a higher percentage of female titled players but a lower percentage of female players 1900+.
For example, if all females above 1900 were titled, then a little less than 50% of women in FIDE would be titled. Even though less than 50% of women were 1900+, if the males that were above 1900 were mostly 2000-2200, non-master, then there could still be more female titled players percentage wise.
That one guy was trying to give averages I think, not medians. I mean, if it was actually a bell curve (normal distribution) then it will be the same number. I think he just picked the place where the curve bumped up a bit in the middle so I'm not sure.
To me it simply suggests that more men stick with it to get to the higher tournament levels. Like I said it's possible for men and women to be equal early on, but the men probably go farther with it while the women may be more likely to stop. Seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.
Yeah, I think personality is a good argument because there are actual numbers on that (somewhere... lol).
Really? What's the percentage? I'm honestly curious. One person said a while back that as far as percentages there are actually a higher percentage of female titled players.
Male titled (all): 11,163/144,124: 7.7%
Male titled (active): 7,024/80,064: 8.7%
Female titled (all) 125/13,812: 0.9%
Female titled (active) 105/7,709: 1.4%
Female titled all (regular and/or womens titles) 2,403/13,812: 17.4%
Female titled active (regular and/or womens titles) 1,370/7,709: 17.8%
So, it's only true because women can get titles down to 2000 rating (I included CM/WCM). On a level basis (proper titles), a far higher % of men are titled.
I´m agree with all, really :I
if someone doesn't try very hard, are they inferior ?
for example if Usain Bolt ran at half his normal speed would that make him inferior ?
so the question is ... can women be encouraged to take chess more seriously and put in more effort ? given of course that chess is mainly a flaming waste of time.
As the group is FIDE rated players, it pretty much excludes those that don't make effort.
Anyone who makes generalizations based on gender, class, race, ethnicity, etc. is usually wrong and ends up making a fool of himself or herself.....
Sounds a bit of a generalisation.
oh no it doesn't, and what does mendez1996 have to say ?
Injured his tongue in the melee?
Whois mendez1996? I think I've been catapulted back 29 years
Whois mendez1996? I think I've been catapulted back 29 years
I don't know, I guess a boy called Mendez that was born in 1996. his profile details:
16 y/o sophmore , used to be awesome at chess growing up but stopped playing competitively after elementry ---------------------- biggest achievements in chess are 2006 NATIONAL Elementary K-3 Co-Champion, 2010 NATIONAL Junior High Team Champions, and multiple Primary & Elementary Texas 1st place finishes. ----------------------- banned account so wont be on here much longer
if someone doesn't try very hard, are they inferior ?
for example if Usain Bolt ran at half his normal speed would that make him inferior ?
so the question is ... can women be encouraged to take chess more seriously and put in more effort ? given of course that chess is mainly a flaming waste of time.
Finally! A comment that makes Two (count 'em! -- two!) cogent points! Thanks, myking! 
if someone doesn't try very hard, are they inferior ?
for example if Usain Bolt ran at half his normal speed would that make him inferior ?
so the question is ... can women be encouraged to take chess more seriously and put in more effort ? given of course that chess is mainly a flaming waste of time.
Finally! A comment that makes Two (count 'em! -- two!) cogent points! Thanks, myking!
So, you say women are not dominant at chess because they don't try hard.
that's an excuse which impute
I'm not sure what you mean by "favoring" -- I wouldn't assume FIDE is trying to discriminate or anything, as obviously they will take a man or woman if they meet the requirements -- I'm just saying their data doesn't represent all tournament players, but mostly just the more experienced ones. Among less experienced tournament players men and women may or may not be equal -- I don't know the data.