Why is this game so male-dominated? - Chess Forums - Page 28

zborg

May 6, 2013

0

#541

Confusing "elite performance" with the question raised (again and again) by this thread is (perhaps) just a bit silly.

While providing "evidence," collected from old newspaper articles, is hardly a robust form of persuasion.

@Pdela, You Little Devil.

Charlotte

May 6, 2013

0

#542

StrengthInPawns wrote:

trysts wrote:

Sheep express concern and compassion, so I take the comparison as a compliment, StrengthInPawns:)

Your "argument" is that men are "mentally better" at chess based upon I.Q. tests. I win chess games against men all the time. That is my counter argument. Your theoretical argument against my experiential argument.

I do want to thank you for showing such self-restraint in being "politically correct", that had to be difficult.

You don't seem to like employing logic much.

I didn't say all men were better than all women at chess. The fact that you're a woman and beat men at chess does not disprove my argument. The fact that men dominate the world of chess supports it though.

And I did not say I was being politically correct. I said I wasn't.

The basic idea here is that there is *truth* and then there is *what you want to hear*

When those two don't line up you experience cognitive disonance. There are two ways to react:

1: the rational logical way. accept that you are wrong. your world view is flawed and adjust your perceptions

2: the irrational way. the emotional way. ignore truth and evidence and logic and twist the world to be *the way you want it to be*

Which of those two are you doing right now?

Could it be the.. irrational.. flighty.. emotional response? Hmm do those words describe any particular group of people?

Lol :)

i bet you're over 50 yrs old, give me evens

trysts

May 6, 2013

0

#543

StrengthInPawns wrote:

trysts wrote:

Sheep express concern and compassion, so I take the comparison as a compliment, StrengthInPawns:)

Your "argument" is that men are "mentally better" at chess based upon I.Q. tests. I win chess games against men all the time. That is my counter argument. Your theoretical argument against my experiential argument.

I do want to thank you for showing such self-restraint in being "politically correct", that had to be difficult.

You don't seem to like employing logic much.

I didn't say all men were better than all women at chess. The fact that you're a woman and beat men at chess does not disprove my argument. The fact that men dominate the world of chess supports it though.

And I did not say I was being politically correct. I said I wasn't.

The basic idea here is that there is *truth* and then there is *what you want to hear*

When those two don't line up you experience cognitive disonance. There are two ways to react:

1: the rational logical way. accept that you are wrong. your world view is flawed and adjust your perceptions

2: the irrational way. the emotional way. ignore truth and evidence and logic and twist the world to be *the way you want it to be*

Which of those two are you doing right now?

Could it be the.. irrational.. flighty.. emotional response? Hmm do those words describe any particular group of people?

Lol :)

I'm not disputing that there are much more men than women playing chess. But I do win men all-the-time. They win me, and other women win me, all-the-time. So, why do I win chess games against men? How am I capable to do this when men already have a birth right to the game? Must be that your "argument" is in error

Charlotte

May 6, 2013

0

#544

StrengthInPawns wrote:

Under 30. Nice try though.

The difference between me and you isn't a matter of age. Just intellectual honesty.

woteva

pdela

May 6, 2013

0

#545

the question is not how average women and men perform at chess, but because the 0,2 % of elite players are men.

TitanCG

May 6, 2013

0

#546

Theory and practice have always been hot button issues at chess.com...

pdela

May 6, 2013

0

#547

i think there are biological reasons involved, i don't mind about men superiority, in fact, i have better opinion about women, but empirical evidence...

pdela

May 6, 2013

0

#548

i don't know why you treat this as something personal as we are none 2700 elo players

pdela

May 6, 2013

0

#549

trysts wrote:

pdela wrote:

The question is, why is pdela so cool?

I've never heard that question from anyone but you, pdela.

xxxxxxxxx

but do you think that way no??? pleeeeaaase

trysts

May 6, 2013

0

#550

pdela wrote:

i think there are biological reasons involved, i don't mind about men superiority, in fact, i have better opinion about women, but empirical evidence...

Empirical evidence says that I win over 50% of my games in a male dominated game. Is there something wrong with you people?

x-5058622868

May 6, 2013

0

#551

StrengthInPawns wrote:

trysts wrote:

Sheep express concern and compassion, so I take the comparison as a compliment, StrengthInPawns:)

Your "argument" is that men are "mentally better" at chess based upon I.Q. tests. I win chess games against men all the time. That is my counter argument. Your theoretical argument against my experiential argument.

I do want to thank you for showing such self-restraint in being "politically correct", that had to be difficult.

You don't seem to like employing logic much.

I didn't say all men were better than all women at chess. The fact that you're a woman and beat men at chess does not disprove my argument. The fact that men dominate the world of chess supports it though.

And I did not say I was being politically correct. I said I wasn't.

The basic idea here is that there is *truth* and then there is *what you want to hear*

When those two don't line up you experience cognitive disonance. There are two ways to react:

1: the rational logical way. accept that you are wrong. your world view is flawed and adjust your perceptions

2: the irrational way. the emotional way. ignore truth and evidence and logic and twist the world to be *the way you want it to be*

Which of those two are you doing right now?

Could it be the.. irrational.. flighty.. emotional response? Hmm do those words describe any particular group of people?

Lol :)

The problem is there are other factors to consider which others have mentioned about why there are more men at the top.

Without all the information, the truth one sees might not be the truth.

zborg

May 6, 2013

0

#552

Why do women dominate the fashion runway?

I'll bet it's related to some Emeritus Psych Professor's writting for the UK Mail, or some nonsense from the hunter-gatherer mythology that keeps being flogged as an explanation for All Things Considered.

Today, National Public Radio (NPR) described a "Scientific Study" that when parents use their own mouth to clean their baby's pacifiers, it results in their kids having less eczema.

That's SO DEEP. Burp.

pdela

May 6, 2013

0

#553

trysts wrote:

pdela wrote:

i think there are biological reasons involved, i don't mind about men superiority, in fact, i have better opinion about women, but empirical evidence...

Empirical evidence says that I win over 50% of my games in a male dominated game. Is there something wrong with you people?

that's cause you face people with the same rating as you but it's not an argument at your level

trysts

May 6, 2013

0

#554

StrengthInPawns wrote:

It seems you're failing to understand something simple here. There are plenty of women that are better than plenty of men at chess.

I've been clear on this. Is it your reading comprehension.. or logic skills that are failing you on this one?

On average, men are better at chess. This is obvious. The top levels of chess are dominated by men WAY out of proportion to differences in population. I'm not sure what the relative population of men and women is.. but aren't they roughly equal?

Judit Polgar would smash me at chess. And I'm above average for a male.

In fact, probably the top 50 women in the world would beat me at chess. (correspondence chess) and roughly the top 100 would beat me OTB.

It doesn't disprove my point. I'm just one male and I'm not one of the strongest.

But if you take, for example, my world rank and pit me against a woman who is ranked equally for women, I would probably beat her quite easily, as evidenced by the FIDE and USCF rating lists.

I would demolish you, for instance. Your rating is higher than mine but I just began playing on this site and will probalby be rated in the 2200-2400 range when my rating stabilizes (post-provisional)

I'm actually waiting for your ego to "stabalize". If you were born with some amazing ability for a 'board game', then I would call you "special", like Rainman.

Why is it that some males win me, but some males don't? Is it that some males are better than other males at chess? Is it that some females are better than some males at chess? This is an argument for "individuality", not for a specific sex.

astronomer999

May 6, 2013

0

#555

StrengthInPawns wrote:

I would demolish you, for instance. Your rating is higher than mine but I just began playing on this site and will probalby be rated in the 2200-2400 range when my rating stabilizes (post-provisional)

About 120 blitz games for about 2000 rating. Average opponent about 1600

About 40 standard games for about 1600 rating. Average opponent about 1400.

I'm inclined to bet against that proposition

netzach

May 6, 2013

0

#556

hope strength isn't another flipping electrician.

batgirl

May 6, 2013

0

#557

"On average, men are better at chess. This is obvious. The top levels of chess are dominated by men WAY out of proportion to differences in population."

Actually, that seems to be an error of perception based on the most in-depth recent studies by Glickman & Chabris and by Bilalic and his research team at Oxford. Precisely due to the differences in population, the difference in numbers at the top levels is statisically normal - i.e. what should be expected. There is also a correlation between the number of a group that enters chess at an earlier age and the number of a group in the highest levels and that when all other factors are controlled, boy and girls show the same aptutide for chess.

Population, encouragement and stick-to-it-ness are shown to be the decisive factors in chess dominance. The USCF has about 12% females, though most of them drop out of competitive chess rather quickly and most are scholastic players. I dissected the role of the 2012 US Open and found that only 4% (21 out of 517) of the participants were female (way lower than the 12% one should have expected, supporting the idea that most females dropped out of competitive chess). FIDE, a more stringent group, has about 8.7% female members. Between the rating span of 1700 through 2100, the % remains pretty constant, then as it rises the % begins to favor men - which, according to Merim Bilalic's study is expected statistically and really indicates nothing. The differences in the averages between the men and women are significant, but not greatly significant and much of those differences are affected by factors besides those already mentioned.

trysts

May 6, 2013

0

#558

StrengthInPawns wrote:

Don't worry too much about my ego. It's right where it should be. (at the "accurate self assessment level")

Also, I wasn't born with a special capacity for chess. I was above average when I started, but I became strong via playing for about twenty years against a wide range of opponents and time controls.

To answer your final question.

Some males lose to you because you are stronger than them.

As I have said over and over again, some females are better than some males. This is a discussion about why men dominate in chess. Not whether all men are better than all women which is absurd. There are plenty of strong female players who would crush most serious male players.

If this is a discussion about why men dominate chess, then it could have easily been eradicated by saying that more men are interested in chess than women. I have no idea why you would not say this to begin with instead of saying that "men are mentally better" at chess? They are not "mentally better" at chess. Each 'individual' claims his or hers spot in the ratings by effort, not by biology, neurology, nor anatomy.

astronomer999

May 6, 2013

0

#559

astronomer999 wrote:

StrengthInPawns wrote:

I would demolish you, for instance. Your rating is higher than mine but I just began playing on this site and will probalby be rated in the 2200-2400 range when my rating stabilizes (post-provisional)

About 120 blitz games for about 2000 rating. Average opponent about 1600

About 40 standard games for about 1600 rating. Average opponent about 1400.

I'm inclined to bet against that proposition

I was looking at the second proposition. I don't know how you would go against any particular player

But I wouldn't back myself against you

trysts

May 6, 2013

0

#560

StrengthInPawns wrote:

trysts wrote:

StrengthInPawns wrote:

Don't worry too much about my ego. It's right where it should be. (at the "accurate self assessment level")

Also, I wasn't born with a special capacity for chess. I was above average when I started, but I became strong via playing for about twenty years against a wide range of opponents and time controls.

To answer your final question.

Some males lose to you because you are stronger than them.

As I have said over and over again, some females are better than some males. This is a discussion about why men dominate in chess. Not whether all men are better than all women which is absurd. There are plenty of strong female players who would crush most serious male players.

If this is a discussion about why men dominate chess, then it could have easily been eradicated by saying that more men are interested in chess than women. I have no idea why you would not say this to begin with instead of saying that "men are mentally better" at chess? They are not "mentally better" at chess. Each 'individual' claims his or hers spot in the ratings by effort, not by biology, neurology, nor anatomy.

I appreciate you trying to at least formulate a sane response. But you're continuing to miss the point.

An individual can be good or bad at chess. But their genetic predisposition towards different activities can influence how far they go. Or at least how easy it is for them to go as far as they could. Or at least what they're interested in pursuing.

And we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about the genders as a whole.

So your mistakes are two fold:

1: repeatedly interpreting my gender-wide statements as pertaining to every individual (this is a fallacy)

2: assuming there is no genetic component to skill or aptitude or general interest

But again, I appreciate that you're trying.

I appreciate that you spend time out of the hospital to address me:) Your understanding is cute. You know, like penguins. Bringing up genetics of course refers to individuality, since we are all genetically unique(save for twins). If you have a twin, then I assume I will have to address two errors in thought. But let's just make it simple for you. If I win a man at chess, in fact if any woman wins a man at chess, then the game of chess is open to both sexes. There is no natural aptitude pertaining to chess. It's a difficult game requiring effort where no woman nor man can rely upon genetic misunderstandings which you so readily embrace.