integral

Men are better at Chess then Woman Debunked

74 posts in this topic

Id like to start out by saying I can destroy Andrew Tate at chess and i didnt have a father who was a grandmaster to hold my hand and pass down his epigenetics to me. lol Actually I can pick a random human and train them in 1 year to be better then Tate (who has a rating of 1600). Hes that bad. 1600 is joke rating that the majority of woman can obtain. So Tates gender bias here as a man is ridiculous. 

The main reason Woman CAN compete with Men and why they have failed to do so up to this point is mostly statistical, the ratio of male to female chess players is 100 to 1 if not larger, so we get a massive under representation of woman competing. Out of the top 100 chess players, 1 is a woman out of 99 men. 

Tate and many top chess players like Kasparov have made the mistake of explaining this phenomena from a isolated gender difference perspective. Dont get me wrong there are gender differences that play a role but its counter-intuitive. Chess is not a game of bruth force logic, thats a misconception. It can be played from a strong intuitive lens that woman can excel at.

--- Edit

What is being underrepresented is the woman who would of been prodigies are not discovered. In a pool of 1000 children 99% are men. 

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@integral

1 minute ago, integral said:

Id like to start out by saying I can destroy Andrew Tate at chess and i didnt have a father who was a grandmaster to hold my hand. lol Actually I can pick a random human and train them in 1 year to be better then Tate (who has a rating of 1600). Hes that bad. 1600 is joke rating that the majority of woman can obtain. So Tates gender bias here as a man is ridiculous. 

The main reason Woman CAN compete with Men and why they have failed to do so up to this point is mostly statistical, the ratio of male to female chess players is 100 to 1 if not larger, so we get a massive under representation of woman competing. Out of the top 100 chess players, 1 is a woman our of 99 men. 

Tate and many top chess players like Kasparov have made the mistake of explaining this phenomena from a isolated gender difference perspective. Dont get me wrong there are gender differences that play a role but its counter-intuitive. Chess is not a game of bruth force logic, thats a misconception. It can be played from a strong intuitive lens that woman can excel at. 

   Funny you  just brought this up, was going to also cover this men vs women in chess topic. However related to this is that recently trans gendered are now banned from playing in chess tournaments. I can't think of a convincing argument for this decision. To me in combat sports it's a bit more obvious the arguments, but banning trans from not playing chess? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@integral

   Funny you  just brought this up, was going to also cover this men vs women in chess topic. However related to this is that recently trans gendered are now banned from playing in chess tournaments. I can't think of a convincing argument for this decision. To me in combat sports it's a bit more obvious the arguments, but banning trans from not playing chess? Really?

The issue is woman have a seperate chess league with a separate rating system that is significatly easier then the mens division. The main purpose is to get more woman interested in playing chess. 

What will likely happen is a trans-person will become the top female chess player and its a bad look. Again it comes down to statistics, there are way to many men.

Quote

Winners of women's titles who change their genders to male would have their titles "abolished," the federation said in the policy. "Those can be renewed if the person changes the gender back to a woman."

Ok in this case it still makes sense, because its a man having a "womans title". But because of how rare it is they should just let it be.

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt these "experts" can explain how Magnus Carlson can create amazing ideas at will. They can just marvel at his tactical genius. "Hikaru doesn't get it, chat" lol

I think the higher the competitive drive, the greater the necessity level. 

That necessity level is what creates "rags to riches" stories, miracles, Succes stories, and the development of space rockets and atom bombs. It creates something out of nothing. 

Women don't have the same competitive drive or necessity level. Simply because they choose not to take on the suffering and burdens that comes with it. After all, it's only a game. However, that is changing as online chess and livestreams are becoming more popular. 

I think you will find better women chess players online or in parks rather than these long ass FIDE tournaments. 

Edited by Ajax

What you resist, persists and less of you exists. There is a part of you that never leaves. You are not in; you have never been. You know. You put it there and time stretches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why more men play chess than women? 

Why more men watch philosophy videos than women?

Why more men choose STEM than women?

Why women in countries with high freedom index choose less stem subjects compared to women in countries with less freedom?

Obviously women don't proactively take an interest in logical things.

And it's ok. It's not sexiest by any means. And if observing differences makes you sexist, then I am sexist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@integral The probelm is not wether women can play chess or not. The real problem is why women are not good at driving :P

 


How would you like to die, Tyrion son of Tywin?”

“In my own bed, with a belly full of wine and a maiden’s mouth around my cock, at the age of eighty,” he replied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Why more men play chess than women? 

Why more men watch philosophy videos than women?

Why more men choose STEM than women?

Why women in countries with high freedom index choose less stem subjects compared to women in countries with less freedom?

How do you exclude and measure the weight of sociological factors on one's decision making?

 

Starting with the assumption of one has to be logical in order to get a PhD  - How do you explain for example the fact that in 1980 there were more than twice as many men who earned their PhD compared to women, and now:

Quote

In the academic year of 2019/20, about 85,230 male and 104,950 female students earned a doctoral degree in the United States. By the academic year of 2030/31, these figures are expected to increase to about 88,000 and 133,000 respectively.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this argument is that better chess players tend to have higher IQ’s, and due to IQ distribution there are more high IQ males than females. Even if there were equal numbers of men and women playing, there would still be mostly male masters and grandmasters.

The average chess grandmaster IQ is 135, and there are twice as many men with IQ’s above 120 than women.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zurew said:

How do you exclude and measure the weight of sociological factors on one's decision making?

You can measure the freedom of choice. There are countries that offers more freedom of choice and we can measu the outcomes in such countries. 

In India there is a higher % of women in stem compared to united states or Scandinavia. 

Apparently sociological factors have been forcing women to choose jobs/degrees that were not in alignment with their interests. I can personally confirm this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tiny man could tell you that men are, on average, taller than women, and you could point out a woman that was taller than him, but that wouldn't invalidate what he said.

I think men are better on average, but I don't know if that's because of some biological factor or perhaps cultural ones. I'm not going to sit here and say "women are stupid lol" (because I don't know where the difference comes from and chess also only represents one aspect of intelligence).

Personally, I don't think it's important whether women are better, equal or worse. I think the problem arises when we try to make prescriptive statements based on how good they're at chess. "Women can't be leaders because they suck at chess!"

Quote

Actually I can pick a random human and train them in 1 year to be better then Tate (who has a rating of 1600).

What is your ranking btw?

Edited by DefinitelyNotARobot

beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zurew said:

Starting with the assumption of one has to be logical in order to get a PhD  - How do you explain for example the fact that in 1980 there were more than twice as many men who earned their PhD compared to women, and now:

First of all, what kinds of PHDs, in what kinds of domain are you talking about.

There is a phd course for everything nowadays. A lot of it is pure BS. 

College has been degrading in value since everyone had access to them. A lot of men who are more than capable of earning a PHD simply choose not to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that participation rates affect difference in performance has been tested and found to be true in the sample size they took from India.

Here is a twitter thread explaining it.

 

Another guy did manage to replicate the results in the case of India. 

But that doesn't hold up for other countries. 

https://followtheargument.org/gender-differences-among-top-performers-in-chess

Difference in participation do not explain difference in performance overall. 

I remember reading a much better technical refutation of the claim, but I couldn't manage to find that paper.

---- 

You can take a preferred sample size as you want. Take the women chess player across the whole world (bigger participation) and take the male chess players from any country( smaller participation) and measure the difference in performance.

Partition rates and top performance are a whole different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

First of all, what kinds of PHDs, in what kinds of domain are you talking about.

So you don't buy into the assumption in general, that in order to get a PhD you need to be more logical than an average person or that you would be considered a logical person?

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

There is a phd course for everything nowadays. A lot of it is pure BS. 

I don't know the details regarding that specific statistic, and I don't know what kind of PhD-s you would select for in this case and how you would properly measure how much logic you would need to have regarding each of those instances. - in other words, what makes a major more logic reliant compared to others and how would you measure that?

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

A lot of men who are more than capable of earning a PHD simply choose not to. 

I mean the claim that certain people would be capable to earn a PhD but they choose not to is probably applicable to both genders. I don't know how you would properly measure this either or that what data you have on this.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

that were not in alignment with their interests

Interests also come hugely from social factors, from culture, from family values, from the social matrix.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You can measure the freedom of choice. There are countries that offers more freedom of choice and we can measure the outcomes in such countries

Having the right to choose is just one factor from the many potential sociology factors.
Btw Im not suggesting that there would be no difference between the two genders (if we control for most sociological factors), when it comes to certain majors, my intuition is that that gap would probably become much smaller, but I can be persuaded if good research is shown on the subject.

 

But regardless, you don't need to engage with my questions above, because it is a kind of sidestep from the original topic (chess).

Regarding that topic, do you know what kind of variables are the most predictive of one becoming a chess grand master? So for example is there any research that demonstrates how much weight IQ holds regarding one becoming a chess grand master and what are the other most predictive variables?

 

2 hours ago, Raze said:

The average chess grandmaster IQ is 135, and there are twice as many men with IQ’s above 120 than women.

Can you link the research paper on this please? I tried to search for it, but I only found articles on it, but not the original research paper.

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Obviously women don't proactively take an interest in logical things.

Again your falling into the trap of gender reductionism and not looking at culture and social drives. 

If you look at black culture in the west there is a strong emphasis on basketball while white people have a stronger emphasis on soccer, hockey and tennis. So we get alot of black people playing basketball disproportionately. Its like how religion spreads.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You can take a preferred sample size as you want. Take the women chess player across the whole world (bigger participation) and take the male chess players from any country( smaller participation) and measure the difference in performance.

That does not work because what matters is the emergence of new players, what is being underrepresented is the woman who would of been prodigies are not discovered.

If out of 1000 kids 10 are woman, and only 1 out of that 1000 develop a actually career playing chess or is a prodigy, it will likely be a male. If the distribution of kids is 500 males to 500 females and only 1 is a prodigy who develops a career in chess then the odds of that person being male or female are closer to 50/50. If we factor in gender differences maybe the odds are 55 to 45, in favor of men. 


How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

What is your ranking btw?

Around 2200-2400, if chess was something I cared to improve at it will likely be higher, I havent play in 15 years as I have other things that i want to focus on. 

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raze said:

The problem with this argument is that better chess players tend to have higher IQ’s, and due to IQ distribution there are more high IQ males than females. Even if there were equal numbers of men and women playing, there would still be mostly male masters and grandmasters.

The average chess grandmaster IQ is 135, and there are twice as many men with IQ’s above 120 than women.

Men in the population are going to be in career positions or have hobbies that will train there IQ more so they will perform better on does tests. If woman received that training they would represents higher IQ rates. Chess drastically raises the IQ of children, male or female.

Its like "hey you been training your entire life for this test, take it and lets compare it to people who have not done that training".

Basically what that statistic shows is that if you train for something you get a better performance. 

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, integral said:

Men in the population are going to be in career positions or have hobbies that will train there IQ more so they will perform better on does tests. If woman received that training they would represents higher IQ rates. Chess drastically raises the IQ of children, male or female.

Its like "hey you been training your entire life for this test, take it and lets compare it to people who have not done that training".

Basically what that statistic shows is that if you train for something you get a better performance. 

IQ is primarily genetic, it’s not primarily trained. Even the studies that find it increasing from things like learning chess only show a slight increase.

this study found the heritability of IQ at 80% https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fthg.2013.54

this study found IQ to be strongly correlated to genetics in late teens and adults https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6551607/

You’re also assuming only males are introduced to hobbies that increase IQ. Not true, reading regularly increases IQ, and girls do that significantly more than boys. 

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, integral said:

The main reason Woman CAN compete with Men and why they have failed to do so up to this point is mostly statistical, the ratio of male to female chess players is 100 to 1 if not larger, so we get a massive under representation of woman competing. Out of the top 100 chess players, 1 is a woman out of 99 men. 

Ok, I did further digging and I don’t think this is true.

It seems people are citing this study which claimed that the gender imbalance can be explained just by participation rates

https://en.chessbase.com/portals/all/2019/05/chess-gender/Why_are_the_best_women_so_good_at_chess_Participat.pdf

but this analysis apparently debunked the original study and showed the imbalance can not be explained just by participation rates and that papers analysis was incorrect

https://en.chessbase.com/portals/all/2019/05/chess-gender/wiesend_questioning gender studies on chess.pdf

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Raze said:

You’re also assuming only males are introduced to hobbies that increase IQ. Not true, reading regularly increases IQ, and girls do that significantly more than boys. 

Reading does not increase IQ. The active effort of problem solving increases IQ. Reading might raise linguistic intelligence and comprehension skills. 

Regardless the first chess rating I received was 1100 and in the process of a year and half it kept going up with deliberate effort and self-development mindset until I stopped playing at around 2200+ 2 years after I started.

Training plays a massive role. I can take anyone and get there IQ up to 120+ its not that hard. They need to have 1 attribute and its the desire to do so. 

Where are the studies of them training people to raise there intelligence? 

If i wanted to i can get a IQ of 200+ on does ridiculous tests just by practicing taking IQ tests. So how this translates to chess is if you practice you improve. 

Edited by integral

How is this post just me acting out my ego in the usual ways? Is this post just me venting and justifying my selfishness? Are the things you are posting in alignment with principles of higher consciousness and higher stages of ego development? Are you acting in a mature or immature way? Are you being selfish or selfless in your communication? Are you acting like a monkey or like a God-like being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now