Let's talk about women in competitive games

[a500lbgorilla]

Looks like an even more pro-nurture piece of evidence than I would expect to find.

Right, it's both. They were made grandmasters, literally everything about their culture was chess, but none of them could crack the top spot. Buncha dudes did.

[wufwugy]

Right, it's both. They were made grandmasters, literally everything about their culture was chess, but none of them could crack the top spot. Buncha dudes did.

we don't expect that the person who puts the most hours in gets the best results, and this certainly doesn't suggest a gender divide.

the sample isn't big enough or randomized enough, but it's a pretty big blow to the idea that men are naturally better at chess. these chicks were trained cradle to grave and entered the same percentile as those who beat them. we couldnt expect better results and this suggests that if the same were done with large enough samples, the gender winrates may not differ.

[spoonitnow]

we don't expect that the person who puts the most hours in gets the best results, and this certainly doesn't suggest a gender divide.

the sample isn't big enough or randomized enough, but it's a pretty big blow to the idea that men are naturally better at chess. these chicks were trained cradle to grave and entered the same percentile as those who beat them. we couldnt expect better results and this suggests that if the same were done with large enough samples, the gender winrates may not differ.

If you put males under those same conditions, they would blow the women out of the water.

The #1 player in the world right now taught himself and didn't take his chess training very seriously by those standards until he was already top 100 in the world.

Edit: I want to point out that the grandmaster title isn't just given based on rating/skill level. You have to achieve norms based on "performance ratings" inside of certain qualifying tournaments, so there are plenty of people who do not have the GM title who are stronger than a substantial portion of GMs just because they don't play as much or play in the types of events that would get them the GM norms needed to be awarded that title. It's kind of a goofy way to do it, but that's what it is.

Also, Susan Polgar never broke the top 100 players in the world.

[wufwugy]

If you put males under those same conditions, they would blow the women out of the water.

how do you know this?

The #1 player in the world right now taught himself and didn't take his chess training very seriously by those standards until he was already top 100 in the world.

let's be clear here, im not arguing one or the other -- im pointing out statistical problems. the example rilla used is of people who are far more indicative of the general population on an inherent skill level than your example. yours is a sample of pretty much a person who is naturally as good at chess as it gets.

i would like to see more on the standard deviations of iq between genders. one study from a hundred years ago doesnt make a case, but if there were several and they showed the same trend, your conclusion would be backed by the evidence more than the alternative.

[spoonitnow]

how do you know this?



let's be clear here, im not arguing one or the other -- im pointing out statistical problems. the example rilla used is of people who are far more indicative of the general population on an inherent skill level than your example. yours is a sample of pretty much a person who is naturally as good at chess as it gets.

i would like to see more on the standard deviations of iq between genders. one study from a hundred years ago doesnt make a case, but if there were several and they showed the same trend, your conclusion would be backed by the evidence more than the alternative.

A large percentage of the top current 500 players in the world followed a path like I described. No women have in history.

Also just Google studies on it. The standard deviations of a lot of things are different between the genders, like height, and it comes down to the XX vs XY thing. That's actually about 1,000x more interesting than the direction this conversation went.