men are better at chess than women

True, men are better at chess. It's all about sex. Didn't it happen to any of us to say quite often that we played a game with the penis?

Originally posted by peacedog
Oh no! Not IQ tests again!!!

The simple fact that you can practice doing and become better at the tests makes them almost useless for measuring anything.

As I've said before, IQ tests are only good for finding out how good you are at IQ tests:-)

Only on an individual basis. The larger the test population the greater the accuracy of the results.

Originally posted by bellalucca
Somebody told me that the best 50 chess players in the world are all men. My girlfriend would like to learn chess but thinks it is cruel and aggressive. Maybe chess is linked to testosterone. If it is, i aint got much testosterone!. Any girls dissagree?

People from the Vatican state cannot ever learn chess. Tell me one grandmaster from the Vatican and I'll tell you 100 from outside the Vatican. So they are lousy at intelligence things. They are catholics, so it says much about them too.

Russians, on the other hand are brilliant chessplayer. Even their 3 years old are good at chess, only because they are Russians. They are the most intelligent people on the earth. Viva communism!

When you have discovered the faulty arguments from above, then you know why the OP is just a sexist crap.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405056/Men-intelligent-women-claims-new-study.html

Somewhere in the article it is mentioned that it is pretty much common knowledge that men have better spatial intelligence. I think we can all agree that spatial would be more important than verbal in the case of Chess.

I like the last part. Really sums up our little discussion. It's quite the coincidence actually.

''These are unpopular conclusions,' he said. 'People should not be made to feel afraid to study controversial issues.

'We have the right to find the truth. One should really look at the facts.'

His work appears to confirm British research which showed men have bigger brains and higher IQs than women, which may explain why chess grandmasters and geniuses are more likely to be male.''

Originally posted by peacedog
Oh no! Not IQ tests again!!!

The simple fact that you can practice doing and become better at the tests makes them almost useless for measuring anything.

As I've said before, IQ tests are only good for finding out how good you are at IQ tests:-)

Well said. IQ tests are just glorified sudoku puzzles.

Chess is a male dominated sport, because historically not as many women either took an interest or social pressures caused them not to play it.

This means that statistically, most of the top rated players will be men (at the moment). If there were just as many women who played as men, then I am sure you would see a lot more even distribution.

This thread has got me thinking about tennis.

If say the Venus sisters played against the men. How would they rank? Would they be in the top 100, or top 1000?

Is there any mixed singles tourns?

Sorry for all the questions. I don't know anything about tennis but those girls look like they have men's bodys with balloons taped to their chests.

Originally posted by Maxacre42

Somewhere in the article it is mentioned that it is pretty much common knowledge that men have better spatial intelligence. I think we can all agree that spatial would be more important than verbal in the case of Chess.

I like the last part. Really sums up our little discussion. It's quite the coincidence actually.
''

Spatial relations is only one facet of chess strength. Things like memory, intuition, toughness, capacity for work, focus all combine to make a player's strength.

Originally posted by nimzo5
Spatial relations is only one facet of chess strength. Things like memory, intuition, toughness, capacity for work, focus all combine to make a player's strength.

I agree completely, but Chess is above all, a visuospatial experience, you move and calculate things in your head. You don't need to be gifted at solving puzzles to be good at chess because of the massive influence that knowledge has on the game, but logically it's still a gift you need to be the best in the world.* There is a reason the ratio of male-female genius is of 10-1 (or is it 20-1? I forget). The main hypothesis in psychology today is that since men have bigger brains (by 100 grams on average when mass is equal), they basically have slightly more max processing power. The fact that men are slightly more intelligent doesn't really impact our everyday life, it will only show when we look at the gender of the humans that achieve maximum intellectual potential in their domain. It's controversial, but doesn't mean it's false. Obviously I don't know the answer, but all the facts certainly point in one direction; That's the basis of my opinion. Of course I think factors like maternal duties explain partly the lack of female contenders, but it just can't fully explain the data. (And for what it's worth, I think the potential in all the other aspects you mention are either equal between men and women, or clearly favors men.)

*(Frydman and Lynn (1992) concluded that "high-level chess playing requires good general intelligence and strong visuospatial abilities" (p. 235).)

Originally posted by Maxacre42
I agree completely, but Chess is above all, a visuospatial experience, you move and calculate things in your head. You don't need to be gifted at solving puzzles to be good at chess because of the massive influence that knowledge has on the game, but logically it's still a gift you need to be the best in the world.* There is a reason the ratio of male-fe ...[text shortened]... ing requires good general intelligence and strong visuospatial abilities" (p. 235).)

The main hypothesis in psychology today is that since men have bigger brains (by 100 grams on average when mass is equal), they basically have slightly more max processing power.

Believe it or not, the second part doesn't follow from the first. I think you made this up. Has this hypothesis ever actually appeared in a published paper? If so, I'd be interested in reading it.

Originally posted by PBE6
[b]The main hypothesis in psychology today is that since men have bigger brains (by 100 grams on average when mass is equal), they basically have slightly more max processing power.

Believe it or not, the second part doesn't follow from the first. I think you made this up. Has this hypothesis ever actually appeared in a published paper? If so, I'd be interested in reading it.[/b]

There is a published paper about it. Here it is:
Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved.
Lynn, Richard
Personality and Individual Differences. Vol 17(2), Aug 1994, 257-271.

If you don't feel like reading the article (or don't have access to it) Here's the abstract :

Argues against the consensus view that there are no sex differences in intelligence. Because men's brains are larger than women's by approximately 100 g even when corrected for body size, and because brain size is positively correlated with intelligence, men have a higher mean IQ than women by approximately 4 points. Among children the intelligence difference is smaller because of the earlier maturation of girls. Three definitions of general intelligence are discussed, including intelligence as measured by the Wechsler tests, the Burt-Vernon model, and the Cattell-Gustafsson model. Cross-cultural sex differences in intelligence, sex differences in examination performance, and sex differences in childhood and adolescence are examined. Different brain organization in men and women and the sociobiology of sex differences in intelligence are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

The thing about max processing power I read it somewheres else, I don't feel like looking for it. If my sentences don't make sense that's another story, I'm french-canadian.

Originally posted by peacedog
This thread has got me thinking about tennis.

If say the Venus sisters played against the men. How would they rank? Would they be in the top 100, or top 1000?

Is there any mixed singles tourns?

Sorry for all the questions. I don't know anything about tennis but those girls look like they have men's bodys with balloons taped to their chests.

Prolly the top 1000. There was a Jon Wertheim column on this a few weeks back. IIRC, Serena/Venus tend to hit [practice] with male college-level players. Rumor has it they can't beat their hitting partners in a match.

Originally posted by Maxacre42
There is a published paper about it. Here it is:
Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved.
Lynn, Richard
Personality and Individual Differences. Vol 17(2), Aug 1994, 257-271.

If you don't feel like reading the article (or don't have access to it) Here's the abstract :

Argues against the consensus view that there are no s ...[text shortened]... in intelligence are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Interesting, I'll have to try and access it tonight after work. I'm especially interested in the explanation that links brain mass and general intelligence for a few reasons:

1. The cerebral cortex, which plays a key role in memory, attention, perception and thought, is a thin sheet 2-4 mm thick full of folds and wrinkles. I don't see how a random 100 g increase in brain mass that doesn't increase the mass of this layer would have much effect on general intelligence.
2. What other factors were controlled for during the experiments, and what are the correlation coefficients for other factors that were controlled for? It could be that brain size has much less of a correlation than other factors, such as developmental factors.
3. Correlation does not prove causation, so the proposed mechanism is key (it may be the case that increases in brain size increase the cerebral cortex preferentially through some mechanism, in which case the hypothesis is much easier to believe).

Originally posted by bellalucca
My girlfriend would like to learn chess but thinks it is cruel and aggressive.

Ha ha! Does she also dislike fairy tales because they are too cruel?