Men are better at Chess then Woman Debunked

[integral]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Fewer women will be interested in chess than men. Just like fewer men will be interested in ballet than women.

It's mostly a function of personality alignment.

Chess doesn't align well with the feminine temperment, just like hunting does not.

16 minutes ago, kylan11 said:

As you know Jordan Peterson says tons of bullshit when he speaks about political topics, but as a psychologist he explained this in a way I found very helpful.

It goes like this: Men are interested in things, women are interested in people.

More accurately, I'm talking about feminine and masculine traits. Now obviously there are women with masculine traits and viceversa, so this is a simplistic generalization. We need both in a functional society.

This is why nurses/social workers/teachers are mostly women while the engineering field is mostly men. Trying to artificially eliminate those differences and make every profession or human endeavor a perfect 50/50 ignores this truth and is actually a loss to democracy and freedom.

It's not surprising that chess, being a "thing", attracts mostly men. There is definitely a socially constructed component to some professions/activities being historically dominated by one gender, but keep in mind that we have (theoretically!) achieved gender equality in the civilized world fairly recently so the overall culture will need time to adjust. And this takes many generations.

Good points, Intelligence has a very flued component to it that if there is passion and motivation in a pursuit for something its secrets will be unlocked. 

[mr_engineer]

4 hours ago, integral said:

Thats pretty good! Is that in the 3 to 5 minute pool? I got to around 2200-2400

Yupp. Blitz rating. I normally play 5/0. 

2200-2400 is insane! Are you titled by any chance? 

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, kylan11 said:

Men are interested in things, women are interested in people.

And wise people in themselves ?

[integral]

18 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Yupp. Blitz rating. I normally play 5/0. 

2200-2400 is insane! Are you titled by any chance? 

Lol no but I did alot of work to get the tactics rating up to the master range.

Its possible to basicly be as good as Masters, IM or GM at tactical solving but not as good at actually playing chess.

2200-2400 isnt that far away from your rating, you can easily hit that mark with a good training strategy. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by integral

[mr_engineer]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Fewer women will be interested in chess than men. Just like fewer men will be interested in ballet than women.

It's mostly a function of personality alignment.

Chess doesn't align well with the feminine temperment, just like hunting does not.

I second this. 

Chess is technically a war-game. A lot of war-terminology is used in chess, like 'attack', 'capture', 'defence', 'protection', 'advancement', 'progress', 'space (as in, territory)', 'tactics', 'strategy', 'endgame', 'majority', 'minority', 'outpost', 'fortress'. Even the chess-pieces are named after war-resources, like 'pawns', 'knights', 'bishops', 'rooks (known as elephants here in India)'. 

A lot of times, it takes the mindset of a warlord/army-general to do well in chess. The more your temperament is like one, the better you'll do. You have limited resources, you have to calculate how you're going to use them in a rocky terrain to achieve the 'war-objective', so to speak. A lot of chess-styles are named like that, like 'attacking chess, attacking player' or 'tenacious defender' or 'positional/strategic player'. Also, 'grandmaster', which is the highest title in chess, is a title which also exists in martial-artists! 

So, it is primarily a masculine game that would appeal to masculine individuals. Having said that, the type of women who do well in chess tend to have high IQs, cuz that's good for puzzles. They tend to be good at management and calculation, from what I've seen about their personalities. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by mr_engineer

[mr_engineer]

12 minutes ago, integral said:

Lol no but I did alot of work to get the tactics rating up to the master range.

Its possible to basicly be as good as Masters, IM or GM at tactical solving but not as good at actually playing chess.

2200-2400 isnt that far away from your rating, you can easily hit that mark with a good training strategy. 

How do I get there? 

I have a friend who's around 2100-2200 and he just started learning the Sicilian. Should I focus more on openings? Or, is it just harder tactics puzzles and calculation? 

[integral]

11 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

How do I get there? 

I have a friend who's around 2100-2200 and he just started learning the Sicilian. Should I focus more on openings? Or, is it just harder tactics puzzles and calculation? 

Well it depends on what your weaknesses are and identifying them. At around 1900 there is a lack of a good opening repertoire that only books can really fill that void, because its not about memorizing moves it about learning all the insights and ideas in that opening and the full games that unfold from that opening, so books will teach you the entire games that emerge from the openings in your repertoire of choice as well as provide new wisdom and insights that will stick with you. 

For every book you read because of the retention books create your rating can go up 50-100 points per book. 

Next got to master calculation with puzzles and really only learn to make the first move when your 100% you see all the possibilities, no more playing guessing chess, thats a bad habit. 

Next got to solve alot end game puzzle to clean that up, as its everyone's weakness lol

Next got to take the time and figure out where your weaknesses are and that can be hard to find. Write them down and create a training plan to fix them.

Edited August 18, 2023 by integral

[Ayham]

@Leo Gura you good at chess?

[How to be wise]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Fewer women will be interested in chess than men. Just like fewer men will be interested in ballet than women.

It's mostly a function of personality alignment.

Chess doesn't align well with the feminine temperment, just like hunting does not.

But you can’t ignore the increasing number of women that are entering what used to be male fields. Even in philosophy, every year the percentage of women studying it in college just increases. How do you explain that?

[Bobby_2021]

9 hours ago, integral said:

Judit polgar was part of a family of 3 sisters whos father thought them chess at a young age, Judit reached a top rating of 2735 that is 100 points away from Magnus Carlsons top rating of 2882. She achieved that rating is a male dominated player pool. 

That hundred 147 points has more in value compared to a 1000 points at sub 2000 levels. That last 100 points requires as much work as getting 1000 points at some lower levels.

And 16 year old kids from china break the 2700 rating mark as if it nothing. As far as I can remember, I have never seen a female player break 2700 mark except for Judit Polgar.

-----

Here is what you need to understand:

The best female chess players on the planet already most probably are playing chess at professional level. 

The best male chess players on the planet are already played chess at professional level. 

Adding more female/male players into the mix will NOT significantly change the environment at the top. 

The top is full of outliers and they do not represent normies and you are only talking about adding more normies into the mix. Men as a whole are far more interested to play chess even for fun because of their logical nature. 

The whole study starts with the assumption that men and women are equal in logical capacity to begin with. 

With that assumption, you go looking for explanations to confirm that World view and pick on participation rates. 

In fact the participation theory has been disproved by studies which took countries with different proportion of women who play chess and found that it has minimal impact on performance at the top. 

[integral]

12 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That hundred 147 points has more in value compared to a 1000 points at sub 2000 levels. That last 100 points requires as much work as getting 1000 points at some lower levels.

And 16 year old kids from china break the 2700 rating mark as if it nothing. As far as I can remember, I have never seen a female player break 2700 mark except for Judit Polgar.

-----

Here is what you need to understand:

The best female chess players on the planet already most probably are playing chess at professional level. 

The best male chess players on the planet are already played chess at professional level. 

Adding more female/male players into the mix will NOT significantly change the environment at the top. 

The top is full of outliers and they do not represent normies and you are only talking about adding more normies into the mix. Men as a whole are far more interested to play chess even for fun because of their logical nature. 

The whole study starts with the assumption that men and women are equal in logical capacity to begin with. 

With that assumption, you go looking for explanations to confirm that World view and pick on participation rates. 

In fact the participation theory has been disproved by studies which took countries with different proportion of women who play chess and found that it has minimal impact on performance at the top. 

The math doesnt add up, if there where 100x Judit polgars running around then one of them will break the top 10 into the 2800 level. Carson is a prodigy among prodigies, its again a probability issue to discover them and train them young. Im not talking about adding normies, im taking about discovering the prodigies and that cant happen with out a bunch of random females getting in to the game. 

Quote

The whole study starts with the assumption that men and women are equal in logical capacity to begin with.

The assumption starts with people thinking they know what logical capacity is and that men are going to have higher degrees of it innately. The quality that makes someone good at chess exists in both men and woman to a relative similar degree. Its a matter of motivation and passion to direct the mind to a task. Men are more interested in hyper fixating on one thing and woman are less likely to do that. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by integral

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, integral said:

The math doesnt add up

Show me the math. The math clearly states that participation rates have no impact on performance at top levels.

You can verify this with stats from countries with relatively high participation if women, poland for example. 

----

Also, have you considered that people are likely to do the things that they are good at?

You will endure sacrifices and participate only if you expect yourself to win big. 

You are starting with the assumption.

"If there are 100 judit polgars..." 

Well, there are not. 

[integral]

@Bobby_2021

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-male-and-female-chess-competitions?no_redirect=1

Woman dont come back to play the game when there older it seems. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by integral

[StarStruck]

People tend to go after things they are good at. 

The reason why there aren’t a lot of women in chess is because they are bad at it. 

If you created a program with equal amount of women and men you would still have men being at the top of the game. 

I don’t get why SD green people have a hard time accepting males and females having different minds. I mean we have different bodies which means we also have different minds. 

To be great at chess you need to be a spacial thinker and be stoic. Chess will teach you in a very harsh way that in life your emotions don’t matter when making quality decisions. And that is against female nature. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by StarStruck

[Israfil]

On 18/08/2023 at 11:22 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

And 16 year old kids from china break the 2700 rating mark as if it nothing. As far as I can remember, I have never seen a female player break 2700 mark except for Judit Polgar.

 

2700 on chess.com or lichess is not the same as the actual 2700 ELO mark. 

[itsadistraction]

Who gives a rat's ass who's better at chess? 

Do you care which one of your friends or sexual partners is better at chess? 

The value of a person has nothing to with their chess abilities!

 

Even if men were better at chess who cares? there's things women are better at. These childish battles of the sexes is very immature and holding you back.

Edited August 24, 2023 by itsadistraction

[Bobby_2021]

11 hours ago, Israfil said:

2700 on chess.com or lichess is not the same as the actual 2700 ELO mark. 

I was talking about the Elo Rating. 

15 hours ago, StarStruck said:

People tend to go after things they are good at. 

The reason why there aren’t a lot of women in chess is because they are bad at it. 

If you created a program with equal amount of women and men you would still have men being at the top of the game. 

I don’t get why SD green people have a hard time accepting males and females having different minds. I mean we have different bodies which means we also have different minds. 

To be great at chess you need to be a spacial thinker and be stoic. Chess will teach you in a very harsh way that in life your emotions don’t matter when making quality decisions. And that is against female nature. 

On top of that high testosterone has a huge impact on your ability to sit and concentrate for hours on end in high stress situations.

[zurew]

52 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

On top of that high testosterone has a huge impact on your ability to sit and concentrate for hours on end in high stress situations.

Do you think that those chess nerds have high testosterone? ?

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Do you think that those chess nerds have high testosterone? ?

Yes. Please do some research before subscribing to such harmful stereotypes. 

[StarStruck]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I was talking about the Elo Rating. 

On top of that high testosterone has a huge impact on your ability to sit and concentrate for hours on end in high stress situations.

Testosterone is only bad if you don’t know how to deal with your emotions. And yes there are men who can’t deal with their emotions and those are the guys who suck at chess.