Men Hardwired to be Better than Women at Chess

More
8 years 11 months ago #189616 by Edan
Regarding your last point, this is relevant to something I studied recently which suggests that parents speak more often to girls as children than boys, leading to better language development. Possibly explains your journalism point.

It won't let me have a blank signature ...
The following user(s) said Thank You: , Ben

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
8 years 11 months ago - 8 years 11 months ago #189674 by

Akkarin wrote: Regarding Magnus Carlson's game, one game of chess doesn't prove anything, because at some point in the future the best player in the game will probably be a woman. You need to have a discussion about trends and averages, because there will always be a few data points which lie outside of the norm.


I just want to make myself clear that the game was an example of what I was talking about, but my post was based on statistics. I talked about elo rating, which is the literal statistical chance that you have to win versus another player. Magnus' rates almost 200 elo points higher than some of the top female chess players. Statistically, this means he has about a 75% win chance against even the top players.

Radar6590 wrote: For whatever reason, men seem to be able to do this more consistently over hundreds of games, thus their higher statistical wins and elo. Women can do it too, usually reaching high 2600's, but the current world champ Magnus Carlsen is almost at 2900, with the skill level increasing exponentially the higher you go.


I posted the Magnus game because it seemed relevant to the topic as supplementary material, and to show you an example of one game. I don't think that Magnus' win percentage is actually that high overall, something like 60-65%, but that is of course versus other world caliber players. Versus a lower caliber players like a 2650 he has a much higher change to win. This would be based off of their overall tournament games of course, and there is something to be said for also checking personal records.

I would also like to point out that I don't think it's reflective of chess players as a whole, but more of an indicator in top level play. (I myself peaked at about 1700 before I stopped playing tournaments when I went to college - many, many women can beat me!)

So to back my statement up, here's a chart showing elo differences and the statistical likely hood that you'll win:

Warning: Spoiler!
Last edit: 8 years 11 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
8 years 10 months ago #190665 by
That assumes that the current top female player in the world has the most aptitude of any woman currently alive which could easily not be true do to social factors. It is entirely possible that the women with the most aptitude who could beat or equal Magnus were not interested in spending their lives playing professional chess essentially a game when they could become idk world class scientists just one example. Assuming they were even introduced to the game at all. I work in a field that is traditionally male dominated and is seen as not being an occupation for women. I did not even realize I could be interested in it till I was much much older than the average boy partly, because I was never introduced to it as a child.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi