Men are better at Chess then Woman Debunked

[something_else]

23 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

And yes there are men who can’t deal with their emotions and those are the guys who suck at chess. 

 

[zurew]

@Bobby_2021

The research I have seen on this (regarding testosterone) only demonstrated that winning can have a positive effect on your testosterone level, but that doesn't mean that winners on average before winning the game had significantly more amount of testosterone.

So would you say that if a player does TRT , he/she will become a significantly greater player at chess?

Like how predictive are we talking about here? Like could an average player using a fuckload amount of Testosterone rise to be a GM (if we assume that he trains a significant amount of chess like any other GM)

Edited August 25, 2023 by zurew

[zurew]

Also guys who have strong and confident opinions on this issue.

Can you list the top 5 variables (1st having the most weight) that relates to one becoming a GM in chess?

And of course if you can, give an argument and a source that will justify each of those claims/variables. If you cant do that, then dont be confident regarding your chess beliefs

Edited August 25, 2023 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

30 minutes ago, zurew said:

Also guys who have strong and confident opinions on this issue.

Can you list the top 5 variables (1st having the most weight) that relates to one becoming a GM in chess?

And of course if you can, give an argument and a source that will justify each of those claims/variables. If you cant do that, then dont be confident regarding your chess beliefs

   I believe that the more you play chess, the better chess player you are. The more you feed your mind chess images, the more intuitive your chess play brcomes.

[Bobby_2021]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

The research I have seen on this (regarding testosterone) only demonstrated that winning can have a positive effect on your testosterone level, but that doesn't mean that winners on average before winning the game had significantly more amount of testosterone

There is also studies which shows that your T levels spike when you are up against a stronger (higher rated) player.

As I said, do more research. What I am saying is a culmination of experience, research and studies. Citing a few studies means nothing to me. 

And I didn't say to restrict yourself to chess specific studies.

See what Testesterone does and it's benefits.

And then realize that men literally have 10x the T levels than that of women.

Then everything will make sense. 

[Bobby_2021]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Also guys who have strong and confident opinions on this issue.

Can you list the top 5 variables (1st having the most weight) that relates to one becoming a GM in chess?

And of course if you can, give an argument and a source that will justify each of those claims/variables. If you cant do that, then dont be confident regarding your chess beliefs

I can give you more than 5 but that's besides the point.

This is so disappointingly myopic view. If I tell you the number predictor of success in chess is studying chess for long hours, you still need an article/study to believe it. 

---

There isn't anything new in this type of conversation. It all goes like 

"Women have been oppressed and suppressed for billions of years, so that explains, and only that, why they can't do better."

And then there will be *some* studies which does sneaky manipulations to justify this among themselves and anyone who disagrees has to a sexist. This is an age old template and it has gotten very boring. 

It's amusing to me why SD green people which is a relatively high stage can mistakes and fail to see things the lower stage does not. 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

There is also studies which shows that your T levels spike when you are up against a stronger (higher rated) player.

As I said, do more research. What I am saying is a culmination of experience, research and studies. Citing a few studies means nothing to me. 

And I didn't say to restrict yourself to chess specific studies.

See what Testesterone does and it's benefits.

And then realize that men literally have 10x the T levels than that of women.

Then everything will make sense. 

You are the one who is very confident in your position and you are the one who seem to imply , that you have done deep research on this topic, so you should  cite your sources and then make your arguments alongside your cited sources.

"do your research" is not an argument. I already told you that so far I only have my intuition on this based on the surface level research I have done on this topic, thats exactly why I can be moved on this and thats why I don't have a confident position on this.

But its on you to showcase why your stance is strong and why your stance is correct (because you have made a lot of positive claims on this topic, and each of those claims require justifications).

51 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I can give you more than 5 but that's besides the point.

This is so disappointingly myopic view. If I tell you the number predictor of success in chess is studying chess for long hours, you still need an article/study to believe it. 

This is not about being myopic , this is about being able to see and being able to demonstrate which variable is more relevant compared to the other. For example, making a claim about testosterone when in reality it might just be the 20th most relevant in the context of one being good at chess could be just a waste of time.

 List your variables in an ascendant order where the lowest one will have the most impact on someone becoming a GM in chess.

And of course it will be on you to justify each weight signed to each listed variable.

 

51 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

"Women have been oppressed and suppressed for billions of years, so that explains, and only that, why they can't do better."

Thats equivalent to saying "everything is just biology bro and that explains everything all the time".

Its just a bad strawman that wont progress the debate further.

51 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

And then there will be *some* studies which does sneaky manipulations to justify this among themselves and anyone who disagrees has to a sexist. This is an age old template and it has gotten very boring. 

You are already begging the question there - assuming your position is correct and studies that go against it all have to be biased or incorrect.

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by zurew

[Raze]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

You are already begging the question there - assuming your position is correct and studies that go against it all have to be biased or incorrect.

There was only one study which claimed proportions is enough to explain the gap and women aren’t worse at chess but it was debunked. There is no proof men aren’t better at chess and it wouldn’t make sense because chess is correlated to many areas of intelligence men are more likely to be born with higher ability in.

[Danioover9000]

   Guys, please don't argue and debate in a heated fashion, or warnings and bans might happen.

[Danioover9000]

@zurew and @Bobby_2021 , maybe @Raze please chill down.

[zurew]

57 minutes ago, Raze said:

it wouldn’t make sense because chess is correlated to many areas of intelligence men are more likely to be born with higher ability in

Areas such as? - I have seen you guys talking about IQ, but do you guys have anything that would explain how predictive or necessary high IQ (of course high IQ need to be defined here)  to become a GM? So for example if there is a chess player with 120 IQ and a different one with 140 IQ is that difference significant in the context of playing chess against each other or not? - or what about player 1: with 150IQ and player2: with 170IQ? On the upper levels IQ matters more or less and how much does IQ correlate exactly with being successful in chess?

Also whats your position here for the explanation for the gap? Biological differences explaining 90%? or 70% of the gap or how much?

@Danioover9000 There is no problem here, I just try to elevate the standard for what it means to strongly prove a point (of course this goes both for the nurture or the nature side of the argument).

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

9 hours ago, zurew said:

Thats equivalent to saying "everything is just biology bro and that explains everything all the time".

Of course everything is not biology, you also need to have wealthy parents to afford you chess training from an early age.

That's pretty much it.

Biology and Wealth. Both of which is determined by pure luck. Luck is the best predictor of chess success. 

You should be lucky enough to have the correct biological/genetical traits and be loaded enough to be trained by your parents when you literally 7 years old. 

[Bobby_2021]

9 hours ago, zurew said:

You are the one who is very confident in your position and you are the one who seem to imply , that you have done deep research on this topic, so you should  cite your sources and then make your arguments alongside your cited sources.

"do your research" is not an argument. I already told you that so far I only have my intuition on this based on the surface level research I have done on this topic, thats exactly why I can be moved on this and thats why I don't have a confident position on this.

But its on you to showcase why your stance is strong and why your stance is correct (because you have made a lot of positive claims on this topic, and each of those claims require justifications).

My position is that men are better in chess because, well because men win more games and tournaments compared to women. Pretty self explanatory. 

The entire thread has been started because op want to disprove this with debunked studies and no mathematical basis. I don't have to prove anything. If you need proof go look at the top 100 players and you will get proof of my claims.