Why are women not as successful as men in chess? - Chess Forums - Page 11

cheeky_chicky

Oct 7, 2015

0

#201

...

Azukikuru

Oct 7, 2015

0

#202

Aikki wrote:

@Azukikuru

Before putting claims like that I would like you to actually read the posts that you are commenting on, since nowhere in my posts I have tried to nullify the statistical results.

Yeah, sorry about that. It was meant as a general observation, and I was too hasty to word your specific case differently.

Aikki wrote:

You didn't include any of this psychological analysis in your reasoning, and instead try to operate on pure numbers which is never correct in real world with many other factors involved.

The reason for this, as I hope to have made clear, is that psychological issues cannot currently be quantified. I'm approaching this problem from a mostly quantitative standpoint, since it's currently the only one that can be directly supported with observations. Granted, I have expressed skepticism towards explanations that don't make sense to me, but I guess that's what we're all doing.

The problem I have with psychological issues as an explanation is that since they cannot be quantified, they remain a convenient excuse that cannot be disproven. My scientific curiosity will not be satisfied with such a conclusion - again, a character flaw of mine. I simply don't think it's correct to assume that those women with the best innate ability, as opposed to their male counterparts, choose not to play chess; with a large enough population (which we have), there needs to be a systematic bias to make this a real effect, and this bias needs to be explained, and above all, quantified. For this to happen, we would need to be able to gauge innate chess talent using other indicators than rating, and to do it systematically with everyone, which is obviously currently impossible. In the meantime, it would be nice if the argument even made logical sense.

Aikki

Oct 7, 2015

0

#203

Azukikuru wrote:

Aikki wrote:

Azukikuru wrote:

Exactly my point. If IQ and chess ability both relate to intelligence, then you would expect men at the top levels to be superior players.

No, IQ and chess playing ability doesn't correlate directly, in fact the chess playing ability is a sum of 2 factors (IQ + hard work on chess), and the hard work is the more important factor. Here has been a separate discussion on it in different topic already.

Even Kasparov's IQ after official german testing apparently got 135 - good enough for a gifted, but clearly not even close to internet sensational claims of 190 genius.

There doesn't need to be a linear correlation. The point is that we see a difference between average IQ results between males and females. IQ tests are designed so that you can't train for them, and thus they give you an indication of an innate ability to process the presented problems. Your article (to which I also linked earlier) then effectively shows that there are average differences between some forms of innate cognitive functioning between the sexes. This is sufficient to allow speculation as to these same differences playing a part in chess performance; the fact that male results dominate in both cases is merely circumstantial.

Quantitatively speaking (since you insisted), the IQ tests have an upper limit. They do not provide a tool to inspect differences at the very top. In fact, in that article that upper limit was quite low: 140. Regular Mensa tests go up to 160, above which quantifying an intelligence becomes increasingly unreliable. Therefore, we're not talking about a majority of males at exactly 140 points; we're talking about a majority of males with an IQ of at least 140. The distributions are obviously not Gaussian (at least, not the male distribution), but I think it's safe to say that they are different, and that this difference persists above 140 points as well. But again: the important thing is that there is a difference, since in my view, this invalidates the argument that men and women must have equal innate chess potential.

My dear, you are going a lot off topic here already. We do not need to be educated about the differences in intellect tests and Mensa tests being more precise for upper part, as internet is full of such articles already, no need to repeat it here. Or you are trying to contradict Kasparov's officially tested IQ and to claim that he in fact has a lot higher, like 190 claimed in internet? Internet is full of such myths but they are never based on any real facts.

And yes, here are innate differences in the way woman and man process spatial information, but they both give similarly good results but still the differences are there - each gender have their own strengths and weaknesses:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635510/

Aikki

Oct 7, 2015

0

#204

Azukikuru wrote:

Aikki wrote:

@Azukikuru

Before putting claims like that I would like you to actually read the posts that you are commenting on, since nowhere in my posts I have tried to nullify the statistical results.

Yeah, sorry about that. It was meant as a general observation, and I was too hasty to word your specific case differently.

Aikki wrote:

You didn't include any of this psychological analysis in your reasoning, and instead try to operate on pure numbers which is never correct in real world with many other factors involved.

The reason for this, as I hope to have made clear, is that psychological issues cannot currently be quantified. I'm approaching this problem from a mostly quantitative standpoint, since it's currently the only one that can be directly supported with observations. Granted, I have expressed skepticism towards explanations that don't make sense to me, but I guess that's what we're all doing.

The problem I have with psychological issues as an explanation is that since they cannot be quantified, they remain a convenient excuse that cannot be disproven. My scientific curiosity will not be satisfied with such a conclusion - again, a character flaw of mine. I simply don't think it's correct to assume that those women with the best innate ability, as opposed to their male counterparts, choose not to play chess; with a large enough population (which we have), there needs to be a systematic bias to make this a real effect, and this bias needs to be explained, and above all, quantified. For this to happen, we would need to be able to gauge innate chess talent using other indicators than rating, and to do it systematically with everyone, which is obviously currently impossible. In the meantime, it would be nice if the argument even made logical sense.

So you still insist on using plain numbers to explain people's behaviour?:) Sorry, but pure math will not help here. I do understand that psychological factors are difficult to quantify, but unfortunately they play huge role and cannot be ommited.

Still, since you insist on finding the mystical "innate chess playing ability", how about considering this:

when you count player's achieved ratings - count instead the number of years actually spent on training. After a certain given period the player would stop improving regardless of still spending time to continue training (not just being inactive and playing occasional games here and there). This rating where the player would stop - would be the rating where he maximised - filled his potential. Now what innate talents would change only the rate (speed) at which player is going towards his max potential, and how high this max potential will be. So let's assume, for 115 IQ max potential would be 2200, for 125 - 2400, 135-2600 and so on (please don't spam me on these - since the numbers have no foundation, let's just say as an example assumption, but I do have some observations based on chess players who actually had their IQ's officially tested). Now then, the completely different question is - whether the player will actually fullfill their max potentional, becouse to achieve it, the hard work on chess is needed, and this is exactly where gender differences in psychology and attraction to azartic games come into effect - so most women never actually fill their potential due to dropping out early. Men instead, do fullfill their potential due to higher attraction to the game - and in effect this causes an average rating difference in statystical analysis.

Now please, don't flame me on this opinion, as this is just one person's opinio, and I am sure that this is flawed, but still I think it's better than pure math that doesn't include pshychological factors.

33antonis

Oct 7, 2015

0

#205

@HorsesGalore, ok in the USCF there are, as you say, 50000 male and 8000 female players.

If this was just the reason that men are on the top, then in the top 58 people you would find 8 female, and in the top 580 people you would find 80 female players. But this doesn't happen.

The reason is simple. In all sports, either physical or mental the male are about 10% superior to female (of course in some sports the difference is a bit smaller than 10% in some other a bit more than 10%). Also in sciences the situation is similar. For example how many female do you find in the top 1000 mathematicians or in the top 1000 physhicists?

Azukikuru

Oct 7, 2015

0

#206

Aikki wrote:

So you still insist on using plain numbers to explain people's behaviour?:) Sorry, but pure math will not help here.

Sooo... should I chalk you up for "nullifying statistical results" after all?

This is one point of contention, then. If we disagree on the significance of statistics in this respect, our argument will only go in circles.

Aikki wrote:

Still, since you insist on finding the mystical "innate chess playing ability", how about considering this:

when you count player's achieved ratings - count instead the number of years actually spent on training. After a certain given period the player would stop improving regardless of still spending time to continue training (not just being inactive and playing occasional games here and there). This rating where the player would stop - would be the rating where he maximised - filled his potential. Now what innate talents would change only the rate (speed) at which player is going towards his max potential, and how high this max potential will be. So let's assume, for 115 IQ max potential would be 2200, for 125 - 2400, 135-2600 and so on (please don't spam me on these - since the numbers have no foundation, let's just say as an example assumption, but I do have some observations based on chess players who actually had their IQ's officially tested). Now then, the completely different question is - whether the player will actually fullfill their max potentional, becouse to achieve it, the hard work on chess is needed, and this is exactly where gender differences in psychology and attraction to azartic games come into effect - so most women never actually fill their potential due to dropping out early. Men instead, do fullfill their potential due to higher attraction to the game - and in effect this causes an average rating difference in statystical analysis.

I do understand your point. What I'm trying to say is that "the magical power of statistics" will take care of random psychological effects, and that any such effect must therefore be systematic - you probably agree with this. This means that if we concentrate on innate ability, it's not enough to claim that some of the most promising young women will quit chess, without explaining why a proportional amount of the most promising young men will not do the same. Currently, many women do persist in the chess world; this would mean that these women have a lesser innate ability than those who choose to quit. This doesn't make sense to me; the simpler explanation would be that men have a higher innate ability on average.

But if you choose to assign a greater emphasis on training, which you seem to be doing, you then assume that women players on average lack the motivation to train as intensively as men players. Well, guess what: inherent, gender-specific motivation is actually an inherent, gender-specific quality, i.e. a biological difference. So either way, you end up with an explanation that predicts that men and women will never reach complete equality in average chess ability because of innate biological differences. But I suppose it could be considered less offensive to claim that a lack of motivation, instead of some kind of cognitive ability, is the culprit.

However, I think it's safe to say that chess ability is a combination of these two factors: innate ability (AKA "talent") and hard training. Without a good amount of either, you won't rise to the top - this is true for just about everything else as well. I posit that all the best chess players, males and females who reach their level through natural selection, attain the same boost to their playing ability (on average) through training, and that all remaining differences are in innate ability. This is because the top players can make a living out of chess in their respective gender categories, and it is therefore imperative that they maximize the benefit gained from training, and they can thus find the necessary motivation to keep training. But I believe this may be another point of contention.

Am I correct in assuming that you disagree with this posit, and that you insist on training, and its motivation or lack thereof, being the decisive issue? Then our difference is this: you say that innate talent is constant and that training is gender-dependent, while I say that training is constant and that innate talent is gender-dependent. I offer circumstantial evidence in favor of this in the form of a difference in IQ distribution between the sexes; I would like to see any evidence, solid or circumstantial, in favor of the efficacy of chess training in particular being gender-dependent. Either way, at least we can probably agree that this is a biological difference that will also persist in the future - unless you can foresee some kind of motivation-boosting campaign for the young female chess players of the future, one that far surpasses all affirmative action currently being undertaken.

CloudedJudgement

Oct 7, 2015

0

#207

Why are women better kindergarten teachers than men?

Why are women better nurses than men?

Why are women better secretaries than men?

Why are women better dressers than men?

TurboFish

Oct 7, 2015

0

#208

Azukikuru wrote

I do understand your point. What I'm trying to say is that "the magical power of statistics" will take care of random psychological effects, and that any such effect must therefore be systematic - you probably agree with this. This means that if we concentrate on innate ability, it's not enough to claim that some of the most promising young women will quit chess, without explaining why a proportional amount of the most promising young men will not do the same. Currently, many women do persist in the chess world; this would mean that these women have a lesser innate ability than those who choose to quit. This doesn't make sense to me; the simpler explanation would be that men have a higher innate ability on average.

But if you choose to assign a greater emphasis on training, which you seem to be doing, you then assume that women players on average lack the motivation to train as intensively as men players. Well, guess what: inherent, gender-specific motivation is actually an inherent, gender-specific quality, i.e. a biological difference. So either way, you end up with an explanation that predicts that men and women will never reach complete equality in average chess ability because of innate biological differences. But I suppose it could be considered less offensive to claim that a lack of motivation, instead of some kind of cognitive ability, is the culprit.

However, I think it's safe to say that chess ability is a combination of these two factors: innate ability (AKA "talent") and hard training. Without a good amount of either, you won't rise to the top - this is true for just about everything else as well. I posit that all the best chess players, males and females who reach their level through natural selection, attain the same boost to their playing ability (on average) through training, and that all remaining differences are in innate ability. This is because the top players can make a living out of chess in their respective gender categories, and it is therefore imperative that they maximize the benefit gained from training, and they can thus find the necessary motivation to keep training. But I believe this may be another point of contention.

Am I correct in assuming that you disagree with this posit, and that you insist on training, and its motivation or lack thereof, being the decisive issue? Then our difference is this: you say that innate talent is constant and that training is gender-dependent, while I say that training is constant and that innate talent is gender-dependent. I offer circumstantial evidence in favor of this in the form of a difference in IQ distribution between the sexes; I would like to see any evidence, solid or circumstantial, in favor of the efficacy of chess training in particular being gender-dependent. Either way, at least we can probably agree that this is a biological difference that will also persist in the future - unless you can foresee some kind of motivation-boosting campaign for the young female chess players of the future, one that far surpasses all affirmative action currently being undertaken.

Azukikuru, I applaud your clarity of thought and expression. Your posts on this topic are the most lucid and convincing that I have ever read.

In my experience with college students, many who support the idea of "celebrating diversity" seem uncomfortable with the diversity that exists between the genders. Have you noticed this irony?

Aikki

Oct 7, 2015

0

#209

Azukikuru wrote:

I do understand your point. What I'm trying to say is that "the magical power of statistics" will take care of random psychological effects, and that any such effect must therefore be systematic - you probably agree with this. This means that if we concentrate on innate ability, it's not enough to claim that some of the most promising young women will quit chess, without explaining why a proportional amount of the most promising young men will not do the same. Currently, many women do persist in the chess world; this would mean that these women have a lesser innate ability than those who choose to quit. This doesn't make sense to me; the simpler explanation would be that men have a higher innate ability on average.

But if you choose to assign a greater emphasis on training, which you seem to be doing, you then assume that women players on average lack the motivation to train as intensively as men players. Well, guess what: inherent, gender-specific motivation is actually an inherent, gender-specific quality, i.e. a biological difference. So either way, you end up with an explanation that predicts that men and women will never reach complete equality in average chess ability because of innate biological differences. But I suppose it could be considered less offensive to claim that a lack of motivation, instead of some kind of cognitive ability, is the culprit.

However, I think it's safe to say that chess ability is a combination of these two factors: innate ability (AKA "talent") and hard training. Without a good amount of either, you won't rise to the top - this is true for just about everything else as well. I posit that all the best chess players, males and females who reach their level through natural selection, attain the same boost to their playing ability (on average) through training, and that all remaining differences are in innate ability. This is because the top players can make a living out of chess in their respective gender categories, and it is therefore imperative that they maximize the benefit gained from training, and they can thus find the necessary motivation to keep training. But I believe this may be another point of contention.

Am I correct in assuming that you disagree with this posit, and that you insist on training, and its motivation or lack thereof, being the decisive issue? Then our difference is this: you say that innate talent is constant and that training is gender-dependent, while I say that training is constant and that innate talent is gender-dependent. I offer circumstantial evidence in favor of this in the form of a difference in IQ distribution between the sexes; I would like to see any evidence, solid or circumstantial, in favor of the efficacy of chess training in particular being gender-dependent. Either way, at least we can probably agree that this is a biological difference that will also persist in the future - unless you can foresee some kind of motivation-boosting campaign for the young female chess players of the future, one that far surpasses all affirmative action currently being undertaken.

I will comment on part by part, since the long posts make it difficult to keep the discussion focused:

This means that if we concentrate on innate ability, it's not enough to claim that some of the most promising young women will quit chess, without explaining why a proportional amount of the most promising young men will not do the same. Currently, many women do persist in the chess world; this would mean that these women have a lesser innate ability than those who choose to quit.

This is actually pretty well explained with the psychological effect of dopamine surge that men receive after winning a game (which women do not receive), so men get addicted to a chess game like to some sort of a drug.

If this was not afecting male population, you would see a lot of most gifted male players dropping out as well, due to people with high IQ having bigger need for mental stimulation to keep them focused on same discipline for long time (more intelligent people get bored more easily from repetitive tasks, and even there is phenomena known as "gifted underachievement").

Currently, many women do persist in the chess world; this would mean that these women have a lesser innate ability than those who choose to quit.

I did not mean exactly that. But for really gifted women to stay in chess there must be external factors (support of family - parents and later husband) to keep motivated, while for men external motivation is not needed since they have enough internal motivation to hard work on chess. Anyhow, every single strong women chess player that I know (I mean rated at least 2500) when checked biography, had very strong supportive family during their chess carerer. Most that drop out - have a family who didn't push them or care much about their career at chess. No external motivation = no need in the game.

Then our difference is this: you say that innate talent is constant and that training is gender-dependent, while I say that training is constant and that innate talent is gender-dependent. I offer circumstantial evidence in favor of this in the form of a difference in IQ distribution between the sexes;

Yes, it is summarizing my point (I claim talent to be constant and training to be gender-dependent). It also requires completely different methodics to work with girls than to work with boys in the training sessions, and from what I have seen, many men coaches fail at recognising this difference (I have worked as a children chess coach shortly for one season but I don't think it would be wise to start discussion on training methodics here in forums).

But if you choose to assign a greater emphasis on training, which you seem to be doing, you then assume that women players on average lack the motivation to train as intensively as men players. Well, guess what: inherent, gender-specific motivation is actually an inherent, gender-specific quality, i.e. a biological difference. So either way, you end up with an explanation that predicts that men and women will never reach complete equality in average chess ability because of innate biological differences.

Yes, I am not contradicting your point, this biological motivational reason will always be enough to keep many gifted women out of chess and here is no way to counter it, no matter how much of chess propagation someone will do. The same as we will not be interested as much in machines, engines and other dirty stuff that men are so attracted to. The problem is that some men can not understand this difference and claim instead that women are dumber than men or not able to play as good as men, based on their poorer average chess ratings. Lack of motivation is not the same as not being able. Also occasionally some women work hard on chess exactly due to reason to prove this wrong, so this false men attitude towards women in chess is actually helping some of them by providing external motivation.

Regarding your IQ comments, the average difference in women and men iq tests is merely 5 points and even these are questionable, so this argument alone can not explain huge 100 point rating gap. While motivational explanation seems to be more precise.

zborg

Oct 7, 2015

0

#210

Men (on balance) have a stronger preference for BEER, Fantasy Football, and barbecue. What of it ??

Using evolutionary psycho-babble and scientism to explain gender differences for chess players rated over FIDE 2700 is surely a fool's errand.

Hundred of threads (on this site) attest to this simple fact. But the ongoing cacophony stops no one.

Why not argue that women are "inherently smarter" than men, B/C they now receive a majority of college degrees in the USA ??

Or that women know better than men -- that chess is not especially interesting for 99 percent of the population, (so they play it less) ??

Get Over It.

Exexexexex

Oct 7, 2015

0

#211

This is not a matter of being smarter, is a matter of interest. By biological, social and cultural influence, most women have less interest or dedication to a mental game like chess, and men have tendencially more interest in any sort of gaming activity/ competitive.

RonaldJosephCote

Oct 7, 2015

0

#212

That's quite a user name. Flag on the play. 5 yard penalty. 12 penis's on the field. Repeat 3rd down.

Azukikuru

Oct 7, 2015

0

#213

TurboFish wrote:

Azukikuru, I applaud your clarity of thought and expression. Your posts on this topic are the most lucid and convincing that I have ever read.

In my experience with college students, many who support the idea of "celebrating diversity" seem uncomfortable with the diversity that exists between the genders. Have you noticed this irony?

Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad to know I'm not just rambling on for my own benefit. I guess taking an active role in these "women in chess" threads has taught me a lot about the subject.

Yes, I know what you're talking about. It tends to be the same mindset that "celebrates diversity" that also opposes those differences between the genders that can somehow qualify one gender as "better" than the other. What we should realize is that small overall differences in chess performance aren't worth getting upset about. As CloudedJudgement so eloquently declared, there are other fields of greater significance to the well-being of the human race where women excel over men; unfortunately, performance in these fields cannot be quantified with such a simple metric as an ELO rating.

puttster

Oct 7, 2015

0

#214

zborg wrote:

Men (on balance) have a stronger preference for BEER, Fantasy Football, and barbecue. Why not argue that women are "inherently smarter" than men, B/C they now receive a majority of college degrees in the USA ??

You are on target.

On balance, men have a better sense of direction. Women have better verbal skills. Men approach women, women respond to men. Men have an interest in cause-and-effect. Women have a keener interest in effect. As the french say, "Vive la difference!"

vkappag

Oct 7, 2015

0

#215

because women have realized that there is no money in chess

and therefore the majority of them have went on to pursue more lucrative careers.

more men who arent top 50 in the world should seriously consider the same.

Azukikuru

Oct 7, 2015

0

#216

Aikki wrote:

Yes, I am not contradicting your point, this biological motivational reason will always be enough to keep many gifted women out of chess and here is no way to counter it, no matter how much of chess propagation someone will do. The same as we will not be interested as much in machines, engines and other dirty stuff that men are so attracted to. The problem is that some men can not understand this difference and claim instead that women are dumber than men or not able to play as good as men, based on their poorer average chess ratings. Lack of motivation is not the same as not being able. Also occasionally some women work hard on chess exactly due to reason to prove this wrong, so this false men attitude towards women in chess is actually helping some of them by providing external motivation.

Okay, I think we're approaching some form of consensus. I agree that some people make an intellectually dishonest leap from a small average difference in ratings to a larger overall difference in intelligence. I hope you realize that it was never my intent to do this; I only used the IQ research as an example of a proven instance where male and female brains perform differently on average, with the intent to show that there can be an inherent difference that results in a slight ratings gap with sufficient statistics. Whether this difference is due to superior cognition concerning the necessary abilities in men, or inferior motivation due to differing neurotransmitter emissions in women, is actually beside the point. Personally, I stand by my original assessment that it's "probably" due to inherent spatial analysis skills in men (because this subject has been researched considerably more), but it might as well be the other way around. If some day I'm proven wrong, then so be it - that's what science is all about.

Aikki wrote:

Regarding your IQ comments, the average difference in women and men iq tests is merely 5 points and even these are questionable, so this argument alone can not explain huge 100 point rating gap. While motivational explanation seems to be more precise.

Here, I'm going to have to interject: IQ points and ELO rating points are not commensurate. IQ is centered on 100 with a sigma of 15, whereas ELO chess ratings are centered on 1200 (except for FIDE ratings) with an undefined sigma in the hundreds. Basically, that means that one IQ point corresponds to tens of chess rating points, making a gap of 5 IQ points correspond to something like 100-200 chess rating points. So in fact, the agreement there is quite good, albeit the uncertainty is quite large.

itchynscratchy

Oct 7, 2015

0

#217

Chess is an addiction. Men are more plagued by addictions.

Nobody2015

Oct 7, 2015

0

#218

itchymescratch wrote:

Chess is an addiction. Men are more plagued by addictions.

LOL. That is certainly true. But, more simply, chess is an aggressive game (yes it is) and most women are not very aggressive. When I play chess with a woman it feels very different. They like to chat and they easily take a draw (generally speaking). But if you come across an aggressive woman she is more scary than a man

zborg

Oct 7, 2015

0

#219

itchymescratch wrote:

"Chess is an addiction. Men are more plagued by addictions."

**Amen to that. Chess is like an itch that men must scratch.

Aikki

Oct 7, 2015

0

#220

Azukikuru wrote:

Here, I'm going to have to interject: IQ points and ELO rating points are not commensurate. IQ is centered on 100 with a sigma of 15, whereas ELO chess ratings are centered on 1200 (except for FIDE ratings) with an undefined sigma in the hundreds. Basically, that means that one IQ point corresponds to tens of chess rating points, making a gap of 5 IQ points correspond to something like 100-200 chess rating points. So in fact, the agreement there is quite good, albeit the uncertainty is quite large.

I thought we are discussing FIDE elo chess ratings, where based on your analysis, peak for men bell curve is 2016 points, while for women you claim it to be 1920, where I failed to see in that "snail-flat" shape a normal bell curve and commented in some of my previous post that something is clearly wrong with that woman graph :) (or maybe here are my worse spatial skills that fail to recognise a peak there...)

In mean that graph in another article: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/statistical-analysis-on-gender-difference

anyhow this peak is supposedly to represent the "100" average population, not the 1200 one (where you are getting this number from, chess.com site?)