Women on top

[Seabass]

The most interesting point in all of this is the chess grandmaster situation. I think that both men and women will agree that when it comes to sports or games that involve degrees of physicality then men in general will always come first.

But what about chess, and to the same degree darts and snooker? All three involve skill, precision and dealing with pressure but they are all absolutely dominated by men. The great snooker champion Steve Davis theorised that men have more of a nerdy propensity to endlessly practice and endure dull exercises, much more so than women, but that doesn’t explain why at least one exception to the rule has never broken through to the highest level. It’s actually quite weird.

Best I don’t mention female comedians as well

I don't think it's terribly interesting. Or rather, I don't think it tells us anything about innate differences between men and women. Throughout history, men and women have been conditioned to pursue different interests. I'm sure if women, on average, were as interested in chess as men, they'd be as good as men.

The US didn't have a non-white president until 2008. Is that because black people are intrinsically less intelligent, less driven, or less ambitious than whitey? Or is it because for centuries we've put white people into one box, and black people in another?

[Sean Hayden]

Why does anyone dominate at chess? Do you think it has to do with what's between their legs?

The Polgar sisters and Judit in particular are great examples of women players who dominate men. Asking that women routinely become World Champion in order to demonstrate their equality is --stupid-- to be polite.

[pErvinalia]

The chess teachers and chess clubs I spoke with all report that, while the number of girls who start playing chess is increasing, and the percentage of females who are members of the US Chess Federation is at an all-time high, girls still tend to drop out at a furious pace.

Some of that might be due to something called stereotype threat. In a 2013 study, the US psychologists Hank Rothgerber and Katie Wolsiefer found that girls as young as six are aware of the stereotype that ‘good chess players are usually boys’. Even worse, awareness of the stereotype affects the way girls play. The psychologists analysed data from 12 chess tournaments, and calculated expected winning percentages for different pairings. Because chess players are all rated by the US Chess Federation, this is a simple calculation to make – a player with a 1000 rating is going to get smoked by a player rated at 2000, but has a fighting chance against one who is at 1100. Rothgerber and Wolsiefer found that when girls played against boys who presented a strong or moderate challenge, they lost more than they should have.

Stereotype threat isn’t confined to kids. In a 2008 study, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy matched 42 expert female chess players with similarly ranked male opponents online. When the women weren’t told the gender of their opponent, or were told (incorrectly) that they were playing against another woman, they performed as expected. When they were told their opponent was male, they played dramatically worse. Which could partially explain why girls are quick to quit. If somewhere back in the recesses of your brain you believe that girls aren’t naturally gifted at chess, then working to improve at the game would be an exercise in futility.

Stereotype threat is only one possible reason girls quit. One chess teacher I spoke with said that he’s had several female students with great potential quit in favour of more traditionally girl-approved activities such as horse riding and ice skating. Gary Ryan, the Vice President of NYChessKids, said he’s noticed that girls can also be put off by the hyper-competitive atmosphere that tends to develop in the tween years.

‘When they’re young, boys and girls both love chess,’ says Ryan. ‘But by middle school, boys get very aggressive vocally, like trash talking. Boys almost do that all the time. Girls don’t like it and aren’t into it.’

The aggression could begin even earlier. I recently observed my daughter playing against a slightly older boy at a chess tournament. Whenever he took a piece, he crashed the figure onto the board, the pieces making a loud clicking noise as though one had broken the other’s neck, then swooped up the conquered piece and slammed it down to the side of the board. Watching the game, I had to stifle the urge to shove a bishop up his nose. To her credit, my daughter brushed off the aggression, but I couldn’t help but wonder how long that will last. You’d have to be a pretty strong-willed teenage girl to handle being the only female in a room full of hormone-addled, trash-talking boys smashing knights and rooks around a chess board.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-only-two ... yers-women

[pErvinalia]

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the recorded history of chess, world champions have always been male, not female. Further, there is currently only one woman in the top 100 chess players in the world. Because chess is often considered to be the ultimate intellectual activity, male dominance at chess is often cited as an example of innate male intellectual superiority. But rather than resort to biological or cultural explanations, a recent study proposes a different explanation.

A team of researchers from the UK has shown that the under-representation of women at the top end in chess is almost exactly what would be expected, given the much greater number of men that participate in the game at all. Researchers Merim Bilalic, et al., have published their research on this statistical sampling explanation in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The authors analyzed the population of about 120,000 German players as recorded by the German chess federation in April 2007. Based on more than 3,000 tournaments per year, the German chess federation measures the skill level of all competitive and most hobby players in the country (the rating correlates highly with the widely known Elo rating). The sample population included 113,386 men and 7,013 women (a ratio of 16:1).

First, the researchers estimated the expected performance of the top 100 male and top 100 female players. Then, they compared the expected differences in points between these high-ranking male and female players with the actual point differences. Theoretically, the size difference between the male and female groups should correspond to the point differences between the top performers in the two groups.

The results showed that the top three women had more points than expected, the next 70 or so pairs showed a small advantage for the men, and the last 20 pairs showed a small advantage for the women. Overall, men performed slightly better than expected, with an average advantage of 353 points, whereas the expected advantage was 341 points. Nevertheless, about 96% of the actual difference between genders could be explained by the statistical fact that the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be larger than those from a small one.

In the study, the scientists also discussed the question of why so few women participate in chess at all. While it's possible that there exists a self-selection process based on innate biological differences that leads women to drop out of chess early on, this argument rests on a controversial assumption, the researchers say. That is, it requires that there is an innate difference between genders in the intellectual abilities associated with chess - an assumption that has little empirical evidence to support it.

Whether or not statistical sampling covers all the bases of explaining male superiority in chess, the researchers hope that the explanation will be considered by both experts and laypeople. In previous discussions of gender difference, there is often no mention of participation rates, although a wide range of other reasons receive attention (e.g. different interests and gatekeeper effects, etc.).

In addition, the researchers question whether a statistical sampling explanation might explain the predominance of men at the top of science and engineering fields - although performance in these activities is much more difficult to measure than in objectively ranked chess populations.

https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-highe ... gical.html

[Scot Dutchy]

Concerning darts and snooker both have only been respectable in recent history. Snooker halls never accepted women and no self respecting women would go there. The prostitutes used to "play" the halls. The same is true of darts.

[Cunt]

The most interesting point in all of this is the chess grandmaster situation. I think that both men and women will agree that when it comes to sports or games that involve degrees of physicality then men in general will always come first.

But what about chess, and to the same degree darts and snooker? All three involve skill, precision and dealing with pressure but they are all absolutely dominated by men. The great snooker champion Steve Davis theorised that men have more of a nerdy propensity to endlessly practice and endure dull exercises, much more so than women, but that doesn’t explain why at least one exception to the rule has never broken through to the highest level. It’s actually quite weird.

Best I don’t mention female comedians as well

One chess grandmaster wouldn't change the fact that the field is completely dominated by men.

Any idiot who doesn't know chess, will have forgotten the Polgar twins. Legend has it that their dad made them grandmasters, saying that he would even before they were born.

I'm confident they could have kicked my ass, and anyone else below about a 1950 rating.

One of the only chess players I follow now is a female grandmaster. Hot as fuck. Steel where others are made of flesh. She is a career player, and was offered an opportunity to play at a high level. She was interested, until they told her that in order to respect the host country, she would have to cover her head.

Nazi bitch said no.

You would like her. (though idiots who think it's cool no punch nazis probably wouldn't)

[Cunt]

Because you don't like the question, and would rather be insulting than answer it, or discuss what it might mean?

Works for me. Attempting to have a rational, adult conversation with a dumb bigot is usually a waste of time and effort.

Especially if their question embarrasses you. I get it. Lash out. I understand your frustration.

Unless this is just you virtue signalling...then I guess I should rage against your insults, or your efforts will look lame.

Everyone will know you are just lacking one single good example.

It's not about equality, it's about finding one sport example where women do dominate. Not where they might, or where they would if only the patriarchy would allow it - where they DO.

Great job on the insults though. You're like an older, more verbose pErvinalia! Great job!

[Sean Hayden]

Any idiot who doesn't know chess, will have forgotten the Polgar twins. Legend has it that their dad made them grandmasters, saying that he would even before they were born.

-that's chess covered

[Sean Hayden]

--that's poker covered

[Cunt]

Any idiot who doesn't know chess, will have forgotten the Polgar twins. Legend has it that their dad made them grandmasters, saying that he would even before they were born.

-that's chess covered

It's ok that you don't understand the question. You're STILL a winner!!!

[cronus]

Chess is over-rated as a intellectual pursuit. Women should still be on top, at least half the time. It is a game of honor, not oppression.

[pErvinalia]

[snip]

-that's chess covered

It's ok that you don't understand the question. You're STILL a winner!!!

And you're still a losernot a winner!!

[Sean Hayden]

--that's business covered

[pErvinalia]

--that's Cunt covered

[Forty Two]

What on earth sort of point are you trying to make? If it is just that men are stronger than women physically - then on average they are. So what?

That's a fair question, what point he's trying to make. But it is a different question. He may be trying to show that men are stronger, or that women are inferior, but it doesn't change the question he's posing, which is, as I paraphrase it, "can you name any sports where women regularly perform better than men...."

I named a couple of sports - I was thinking certain gymnastic events, and figure skating, as two examples. There are probably more.

So, Cunt, can you answer Rum's tangential question here? What point are you trying to make, if any? If you've already stated it, my apologies. Just please restate it here, if you would not mind.