Pupils, pupils, please have a seat...shhhhh.... Professor cheater_1 is about to go over today's lesson.
Students, it seems many of you are confused over the concept of statistics and probability. I am here to set you all STRAIGHT. Please refer to my last topic about men being GENETICALLY superior to women at chess. Whether you agree with me or not is NOT the issue. It seems that MANY of you believe that just because there are more men playing chess than there are women, it is inevitable that a man be ranked #1, or at the very least, easier for a man to be ranked #1. There can be nothing further from the truth. I will illustrate, through ANALOGY, why this is not so. PAY ATTENTION!!!!
Probability can ONLY be used when all things are EQUAL. For example, if I have 10 red socks in a drawer and 1 white sock, the probability of me picking the white sock are 1 in 10 or 10%. Call it probability or odds or whatever you like. Understand? Good. If I took 24 black ROOKS and 4 white ROOKS and floated them in a bucket of water, reached into the bucket, what would be the odds that I picked a black rook? 24 in 28. Reduced to 6 in 7 or 85.7%. Are you all following me? Good.
Now, when things are NOT equal, probability cannot be used. Allow me to explain. If I were to take a sinker and tie it to those 24 black rooks so they sunk to the bottom, would I still have an 85.7% chance of getting a black rook? NO. They SUNK!! Out of reach. See? Ok. If I were to sit across the chessboard from Vishy ANAND for a 40/120 game, the 2 possible outcomes are that I win or that I lose (let’s forget about the draw for this example). Right? Either I will win or I will lose. So, I have a 50% chance of beating ANAND, right? WRONG. Wait a minute, either I will win (50 percent) or lose (50 percent). Heck, with those odds, I want IN for the next WCC. Do you all see that I (a 1900USCF player) do NOT have a 50% chance of beating Anand? We are NOT equal. His skill FAR exceeds mine. The same can be said for Tiger Woods. He is the only black player on the PGA but is ranked #1 in a sea of white people. How can this be, you ask? There are soooo many whites on tour. A white should have like a 99% chance of being #1. Probability is NOT a factor, my DOPEY pupils. Please, pay attention to me.
In conclusion, when whatever it is you are sampling is NOT equal, probability cannot be used, at least not fairly. Imagine if I got to pick 500,000 numbers on the next lottery for $1, I would have a better chance than you at winning. UNFAIR! The simple fact that more men play chess than women has ZERO relevance regarding why a man has ALWAYS occupied the #1 position. ZERO. Do I make myself clear? Good. Thank you for your time, students. You are dismissed.
Originally posted by cheater1Of course it is. If I think that there is no genetic difference, then the subsequent probability/statistics calculations compare apples to apples, and the rest of your argument is just question-begging.
Please refer to my last topic about men being GENETICALLY superior to women at chess. Whether you agree with me or not is NOT the issue.
Further, even if you were able [somehow] to show that a woman's odds [based strictly on genetic inferiority] of being WC were only 40% and a man's 60%, it would still be true that the odds of getting a female world champ increase as more women take up the game.
Of course it is. If I think that there is no genetic difference, then the subsequent probability/statistics calculations compare apples to apples, and the rest of your argument is just question-begging.
But there are physical differences between the male and female brain and they do operate differently. These differences may give males an advantage when it comes to chess, as it gives famales advantages in other areas. You see this kind of stuff in schools all the time. Girls are generally better at English than boys, but boys are generally better at math.
Mr. Swiss Gambit, I have PROVEN with clear and concise facts that there is INDEED a genetic difference between men's and women's brains, NO, I take that back. I have not proven it, it has been proven by scientists time and time again, I have only echoed the concrete facts.
Heck, while you're at it, why dont you try to dispute the fact that men are, on the average, taller than women?
You are seeming more and more troll-like to me Swissgambit. Watch your step or I will cease responding to your outrageous, argumentative posts.
Originally posted by cheater1I'm not really looking to argue with your underlying point because, frankly, I don't know whether it's valid or not, so I'm not going to argue against it just for the sake of arguing.
Pupils, pupils, please have a seat...shhhhh.... Professor cheater_1 is about to go over today's lesson.
Students, it seems many of you are confused over the concept of statistics and probability. I am here to set you all STRAIGHT. Please refer to my last topic about men being GENETICALLY superior to women at chess. Whether you agree with me or not is NO ...[text shortened]... tion. ZERO. Do I make myself clear? Good. Thank you for your time, students. You are dismissed.
Furthermore, I agree that linear probability rules do not have a valid application to this question, mainly for the reason you cited.
Still, the number of chess players among the genders does bear some relationship to the odds of which gender will hold the #1 spot.
For example, assume, arguendo, that men and women were inherently genetically equal in chess aptitude (I know you disagree with the premise, but bear with me). If, for reasons of peer pressure and other societal factors, 80% of men gave chess a serious try, while only 20% of women did, because the other 80% decided to try hopscotch or Barbie dress-up as a hobby instead, that does decrease the odds of the #1 player being female. This is because it's possible that the potential #1 player in the World would have been female were it not for the fact that she was caused, by societal factors, to avoid chess in the first place.
It's true, of course, that one with a strong aptitude for chess is more likely to give the game a shot in the first place, but it's also possible that potentially great players simply never try the game and therefore never become good at it.
LOAFER, bigotry? Bigotry? Intolerance of women? Is that what you take from my posts? Intolerance? Really?
Is it bigotry to simply say that a man is better than woman at chess and cite the reasons? No. Is it racist to say I hope Phil Mikelson beats Tiger Woods in the next sudden death match? No. Bigotry? Honestly?
Huh.
SH76, thanks for showing some civility. I understand what you're saying. It would be as if Tiger decided to go into the Writing field, we wouldnt have a single black player on the PGA, let alone a #1 ranked black. THe world wouldnt have known about him.
But that opens up a whole other debate which I am going to avoid going into detail, and that debate is DESTINY. Are we destined to be something? Is it PREWRITTEN that someone is going to be the BEST chess player or the BEST science fiction author, etc.? I firmly do not believe in destiny. I dont believe in any grand plan that is already written, and it's up to us to figure it out. I dont believe it was WRITTEN that Tiger would be the worlds best Golfer.
I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. I stand behind the scientific findings (not theory) that the male brain has microevolved (descent with modification) to better understand and comprehend certain things, and the things that it comprehends better (spacial relationships, analyzations, systems, mathematics, etc.) just happens to be CORE elements of chess.
I dont buy into the DESTINY thing.
Originally posted by cheater1If you wanna talk destiny and get all voodoo on us i'd recommend going to the 'debates' or 'spirituality' forum.
SH76, thanks for showing some civility. I understand what you're saying. It would be as if Tiger decided to go into the Writing field, we wouldnt have a single black player on the PGA, let alone a #1 ranked black. THe world wouldnt have known about him.
But that opens up a whole other debate which I am going to avoid going into detail, and that debate i ...[text shortened]... tics, etc.) just happens to be CORE elements of chess.
I dont buy into the DESTINY thing.
And lets just say for arguments sake that men are better equipped to play chess.......who cares??? What does it matter??
Originally posted by EladarYes, I used the wrong word. I meant "genetic inferiority", not difference.Of course it is. If I think that there is no genetic difference, then the subsequent probability/statistics calculations compare apples to apples, and the rest of your argument is just question-begging.
But there are physical differences between the male and female brain and they do operate differently. These differences may give males a ...[text shortened]... e time. Girls are generally better at English than boys, but boys are generally better at math.
"Different" does not mean necessarily mean "inferior", and adolescence is probably not the ideal time to measure these abilities.
For example, if men are inferior at English, then why are there so many renowned male authors?
As for chess, can you rule out the possibility that some aspects of the female brain might confer an advantage? For example, some scientists believe that women are generally a bit better at multitasking than men. Isn't is possible that this could translate to chess?
Originally posted by cheater1Again, the word I meant to use was "inferiority", not "difference".
Mr. Swiss Gambit, I have PROVEN with clear and concise facts that there is INDEED a genetic difference between men's and women's brains, NO, I take that back. I have not proven it, it has been proven by scientists time and time again, I have only echoed the concrete facts.
Heck, while you're at it, why dont you try to dispute the fact that men are, on th ...[text shortened]... ssgambit. Watch your step or I will cease responding to your outrageous, argumentative posts.
However, that does not change the fact that your arguments are poorly supported and in general you are arrogant and yet ignorant at the same time.
I could not care less if you respond to my posts or not; either way, I will continue to enjoy debunking your claims.
