The Queen's Gambit on Netflix was fiction. This is probably (heart)breaking news for many LR commenters.
Yeah, but I loved the ending. After she beats the world champ, she goes to the park and starts playing some random guy there, like he could give her a good game.
"Our results indicate that there is a robust positive relationship between TBV (Total Brain Volume) and intelligence that is similar across sex and various age strata."
"Our results indicate that there is a robust positive relationship between TBV (Total Brain Volume) and intelligence that is similar across sex and various age strata."
I appreciate being disabused of my folly. Oh, wait. Post 33: “because one can find some studies reflecting particular types and levels of correlation but others that do not.”
Girls and women get better grades and graduate high school and college at higher rates. On the other hand, boys get slightly higher SAT scores on average because of an advantage on the quantitative section and also are far more represented at the extremes, a good deal more 700s on each section and a good deal more very low scores as well.
The real question is: Who posts more on LetsRun? Men or women?
On the off chance that it’s men, is it fair to say that the vast majority of posters are among those represented at one extreme, with that obviously being several standard deviations above the mean in intelligence (noteworthy speed, looks, income are all a given)?
"Our results indicate that there is a robust positive relationship between TBV (Total Brain Volume) and intelligence that is similar across sex and various age strata."
I appreciate being disabused of my folly. Oh, wait. Post 33: “because one can find some studies reflecting particular types and levels of correlation but others that do not.”
Why believe your lying eyes when you can rely on bad studies that tells you what you want to believe.
Read the Discussion section of the study I linked. It explains it very well.
I believe the top 100 ranked players is currently 100 men. Three women have ever been ranked in the top 100 with the highest currently #118.
Do men who play chess outnumber women 100 to 1? Why are men drawn to chess if we're all the same inside?
Searching back through this thread, I haven't seen a whole lot of folks saying, "we're all the same inside."
Some sort of pet peeve of yours that you find yourself working it into conversations?
Do you live under a rock? The left continually denies that there's any difference between the sexes. They argue that trans-women who are biologically male have no advantage over biological women.
The left's view on chess isn't that men are better at it it's that women are oppressed by the patriarchy and dissuaded from playing chess at all.
another thread baiting out the idiots who deny that men and women are physically different, including in the brain.
The brain of a man is geared to physical action, the very premise of chess. All the complexity is built around which piece stabs to death which other piece.
A woman's brain is not wired to handle that premise. It is geared to handle possessing property (mentally ill women obsess with that) but this doesn't translate so well to territory in a battle.
Overall, women don't develop war fighting faculties as well as men, nature has seen to that. It would be a waste of metabolic energy, a selective disadvantage, bad for the species.
Offended? Good! Your cognitive dissonance is from your own acceptance of elaborate pseudo-knowledge and rejection of plain reality.
Men are smarter on average. Einstein, Newton ,Hawkins, Biden ....men.
I’ve actually read an interesting take on this. Men and women tend to have roughly the same Average IQ, but the bell curve of men is wider. That is, men contain more outliers on both sides. They have more super geniuses, but also more super idiots.
people often mistakenly associate being good at chess with having high intelligence when this is not the case. what’s required is great pattern recognition and a good memory. you don’t need to be abnormally smart, most grandmasters aren’t.
that said there is an obvious difference between the sexes in top level chess. a lot of it can be accounted for by opportunity and incentive but even taking that into account I feel like the standard of women’s chess is still surprisingly low.
I’ve actually read an interesting take on this. Men and women tend to have roughly the same Average IQ, but the bell curve of men is wider. That is, men contain more outliers on both sides. They have more super geniuses, but also more super idiots.
people often mistakenly associate being good at chess with having high intelligence when this is not the case. what’s required is great pattern recognition and a good memory. you don’t need to be abnormally smart, most grandmasters aren’t.
that said there is an obvious difference between the sexes in top level chess. a lot of it can be accounted for by opportunity and incentive but even taking that into account I feel like the standard of women’s chess is still surprisingly low.
Pattern recognition and memory are both elements of intelligence.
1.) Talent pool. Walk in to any chess club, and you'll see that the vast majority of the players are male.
2.) More variation in men than in women. The median men's ELO is probably the same as the median women's ELO, but the standard deviation for men is bigger. That means more male masters and GMs but also more male patzers.
In physics it's more like 2% (only 5). Though the fact that Lise Meitner and Jocelyn Bell Burnell never won tells you everything you need to know about the wonderful dudes making the decision.
I'd have given Meitner the peace prize as well as physics since her discovery ended WWII. Maybe chemistry too for good measure.
"...tells you everything you need to know about the wonderful dudes making the decision."
LOL. the dudes making the decision. The Nobel Committee is comprised of 3 women and 3 men as you can see in the picture here. And you can be sure they are very liberal.
"Our results indicate that there is a robust positive relationship between TBV (Total Brain Volume) and intelligence that is similar across sex and various age strata."
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be some subtle "men are smarter than women" post (if Chess performance is somehow a metric for intelligence?)
Way more boys play chess competitively than girls and way more men continue to play chess competitively after their scholastic years. It stands to reason you would have more top men than women with this distribution.
Judit Polgar was ranked top 10 overall in the world at her peak and peaked at 2735 ELO. This would be like a woman breaking 27 minutes in a 10K and would suggest women are capable of competing with top men. It's far more likely that social pressures are the reason for disparity than some inborn talent men have.
Then again, I'm a Patzer so what do I know.
I’m not a great player (2170 average across bullet/blitz/rapid on chess.com, 1700+ USCF but rating is very stale due to only 3 tournaments in 20+ years) but I follow top-level chess very closely. A few (possible) reasons:
- Way more men than women compete in chess from a young age and tend to pursue it competitively in later years, so the “talent pool” for men is much larger and will lead to more top-rated players
- Other societal pressures or cultural norms lead to fewer women pursuing chess at a top level.
- I think the inclusion of women’s-only tournaments can provide a disincentive to reach the highest levels. Judit Polgar famously avoided women’s-only tournaments (although she did compete in some at a very young age). A 2500 FIDE rated woman can make a good living just playing professional tournaments, something not available to a 2500 man.
- There is evidence that men are on average better at spatial reasoning and the type of logic and memory required to excel at chess.
- There is also evidence that men, as a population, have a wider distribution of intellectual ability than women. Therefore we’d expect to see more outliers at the top (as well as bottom, which no one cares about) even if the mean ability between genders was identical.
The Polgar sisters, especially Judit, (as well as Hou Yifan who nearly reached 2700 but has chosen not to dedicate herself full-time to chess) demonstrate there’s nothing inherently preventing women from reaching the top echelon of performers. There are some younger women players that could definitely reach 2600 or even 2700 one day. Alice Lee just turned 14 and reached 2400 FIDE (will soon receive her IM title). I think Eline Roebers shows a lot of talent as well.
Searching back through this thread, I haven't seen a whole lot of folks saying, "we're all the same inside."
Some sort of pet peeve of yours that you find yourself working it into conversations?
Do you live under a rock? The left continually denies that there's any difference between the sexes. They argue that trans-women who are biologically male have no advantage over biological women.
The left's view on chess isn't that men are better at it it's that women are oppressed by the patriarchy and dissuaded from playing chess at all.
Do you live under a rock? The left continually denies that there's any difference between the sexes. They argue that trans-women who are biologically male have no advantage over biological women.
The left's view on chess isn't that men are better at it it's that women are oppressed by the patriarchy and dissuaded from playing chess at all.
I see that you enjoy spouting nonsense.
Good to know
Not only do you live under a rock, apparently you're so pigheaded you think anything you're unaware of from under your rock doesn't exist.
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be some subtle "men are smarter than women" post (if Chess performance is somehow a metric for intelligence?)
Way more boys play chess competitively than girls and way more men continue to play chess competitively after their scholastic years. It stands to reason you would have more top men than women with this distribution.
Judit Polgar was ranked top 10 overall in the world at her peak and peaked at 2735 ELO. This would be like a woman breaking 27 minutes in a 10K and would suggest women are capable of competing with top men. It's far more likely that social pressures are the reason for disparity than some inborn talent men have.
Then again, I'm a Patzer so what do I know.
I’m not a great player (2170 average across bullet/blitz/rapid on chess.com, 1700+ USCF but rating is very stale due to only 3 tournaments in 20+ years) but I follow top-level chess very closely. A few (possible) reasons:
- Way more men than women compete in chess from a young age and tend to pursue it competitively in later years, so the “talent pool” for men is much larger and will lead to more top-rated players
- Other societal pressures or cultural norms lead to fewer women pursuing chess at a top level.
- I think the inclusion of women’s-only tournaments can provide a disincentive to reach the highest levels. Judit Polgar famously avoided women’s-only tournaments (although she did compete in some at a very young age). A 2500 FIDE rated woman can make a good living just playing professional tournaments, something not available to a 2500 man.
- There is evidence that men are on average better at spatial reasoning and the type of logic and memory required to excel at chess.
- There is also evidence that men, as a population, have a wider distribution of intellectual ability than women. Therefore we’d expect to see more outliers at the top (as well as bottom, which no one cares about) even if the mean ability between genders was identical.
The Polgar sisters, especially Judit, (as well as Hou Yifan who nearly reached 2700 but has chosen not to dedicate herself full-time to chess) demonstrate there’s nothing inherently preventing women from reaching the top echelon of performers. There are some younger women players that could definitely reach 2600 or even 2700 one day. Alice Lee just turned 14 and reached 2400 FIDE (will soon receive her IM title). I think Eline Roebers shows a lot of talent as well.
There are more women on planet earth than men. Ergo the talent pool for women in larger.
Many more men play chess. A larger base of players means a higher peak for the best players. Its simple statistics.
I am not so sure about this. Here you are talking the best of the best. Not sure having 10x more men (or whatever) makes a difference when you are looking at the top players.
