/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9691046

Because women are not equal to men.

>>9691046
Women don't like chess.

>>9691046
Do IM's count?

>>9691046

>>9691046
There are, Hou Yifan for example.

>>9691093
>working of the together woman power

women have better things to do

>>9691046
Because women focus on other things. Judit Polgar was basically a science experiment by her father, who forced his daughters to play chess for a living. They proved, quite conclusively, that women can play chess just as well as men. I mean Judit was the star, but her sisters were also quite good.

>>9691046
Is chess a worthwhile hobby to get involved into?

>>9691046
There are plenty of young female grandmasters. I do think though, that men may have some sort of advantage in playing chess, but I'm not sure.

>>9691125
No.

>>9691125
Personally I think it is. It's a fun game which requires you to focus your mind and attempt to recognize patterns and think of strategies and tactics. It's only going to be worthwhile though if you try it and find that it peaks your interest, if you get frustrated easily by losing then it's not for you.

>>9691125
I play a bunch and I don't even know

>>9691133
The problem is to play even on a casual level at a local club you'll need to devote hours/days/weeks to opening theory which is quite possibly the most boring thing you could do with you life.

Bobby Fischer basically gave up chess because of opening theory, and it's much worse now with computers basically churning it out. Most top GM's out there probably know 10+ moves into *any* opening, and they probably prepare an opening up to 20 moves or so. Basically like memorizing the encyclopedia.

>>9691145
> Bobby Fischer basically gave up chess because of opening theory, and it's much worse now with computers basically churning it out. Most top GM's out there probably know 10+ moves into *any* opening, and they probably prepare an opening up to 20 moves or so. Basically like memorizing the encyclopedia.

This is the answer I wanted to know. Thanks I guess I'll stick to posting on 4chan and video games.

>>9691125

I think so. It at least is for networking. Chess players are generally smart, but especially the higher level you are.

You are most likely to meet successful and influential people playing chess

>>9691046
Who faces the knights inwards like that?

>>9691145
You're kinda right but players like karpov and magnus play less critical lines and still dominate. You have to build your repertoire

They're too smart for silly games.

>>9691109
>They proved, quite conclusively, that women can play chess just as well as men
Did they really? As far as I know, none of the Polgar-sisters ever placed in the top100 - they certainly weren´t among the 50 highest-rated players.

>>9691133
Here's a better, funner game than chess that also requires you to focus your mind and attempt to recognize patterns and think of strategies and tactics. It's also not dominated by computers but by humans (not yet at least lol). It is called mathematics. Please divert your time and effort there instead of chess. UGH, I have spoken.

>>9691090
nice board

>>9691159
True to a certain extent, but their knowledge of opening theory and historical games is far more then anybody could expect to learn even if they spent 4+ years doing nothing but studying chess.

Learning to play the game on a casual level with friends is fine, but if you want to play even at the IM level you're looking at devoting a significant portion of your life to the game.

>>9691145
To play on a casual level you need to devote weeks to opening theory? That isn't entirely true at all. Casual play is a pretty broad spectrum and involves many players of different skill levels. Just find some folks to play with who are slightly better, until you're up to their level.
>>9691166
What if I just enjoy playing chess and really don't have to study it because I've played enough chess to be competent?
>>9691200
Yeah I mean, I just like to play on an anonymous chess website without an account. I'm not interested in being a master of the game or whatever. I just really enjoy playing the game on the computer to help kill time or exhaust my brain so I can go to sleep.

>>9691164
You could google it... Judit was world no. 8 at one point. She beat Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, and she beat a young Carlsen among others.

Because women have a higher concentration on the average parts of the iq bell curve

>>9691655
>iq
Not science, sorry. Iq is pseudoscience.

Far more men on the high and low end of the bell curve. Men are more likely to be geniuses or retards, but are less likely to be average.

>>9691046
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YruxhWO8QSY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNbMRmtEoS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOZ-qG4pMw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0XVuU-iF5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RAgV7X-0Wo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sQ3vV2HpvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnmQtjWBrfI

>>9691946
See>>9691891

>>9691891
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>>9691157
You always do that

>>9691972
>politics rant
Yet iq is still not science, anon. Iq is pseudoscience.

>>9691984
The label you want to use is irrelevant.

>>9691046
How come there are no human grandmasters of chess with an ELO over 3000?

>>9691891
>>9691984
IQ isn't pseudoscience, it's a well defined and thoroughly tested metric. There are valid criticisms you could have made about IQ but that isn't one of them you pseud.

>>9691999
elo is relative. The expectation value goes to 1 (resp. 0) for larger elo differences.

>>9691046
because women don't play the game as much

Because women are less analytical. They get BTFO whenever they compete with men.

>>9692015
OK, but why do a variety of different AI chess players have 3K+ ELO but no humans have ever broken 3K?

>>9692032
Because computers are really fucking good at chess.

>>9691992
>>9692008
>>9682183
Yet iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is pseudoscience.

>>9692491
Not finding interesting results isn't the same thing as being pseudoscience you pseud.

chess is a male dominated sport (if it can even be called a sport) and is such a fucking boys club that any woman entering would get bodied out within weeks

>>9692608
And when women do join tournaments and do well, they disproportionately are accused of cheating...

>>9692608
>bodied out
What does that even mean?

>>9691046
>How come there are no women grandmasters of chess?
Because IQ is real and men are smarter than women are.

>>9691962
It's nice that you are allowed to have a youtube channel but why are you posting your videos here?

>>9692617
Getting basically forced out by people in groups because you don't conform whether it's due to being inherently different like women in dude bro industries (silicon valley) or so hostile to others such as being a regular joe in institutions with old blood+prestige+wealth being extremely huge in it that you either stay and be treated like trash and they'll never respect you (And that gets to you over time) or you leave which then they'll use you as an expel on why your ilk can't join.

I knew French folk who've tried to penetrate the latter and it's a fucking shitshow.

>>9692531
As iq is not science, and it's being forced to be called science, it becomes pseudoscience.

Iq is psedoscience.

>>9691093
as an intellectual and an avid manga reader my brain instantly read this the correct way

>>9691972
how autistic do you have to be to spam this

>>9691992
labels are merely a social construct xD

>>9691891
>Iq is pseudoscience.
Sure, sure, and time isn't real, nor are gravity or consciousness.
The universe is deterministic, and must surely be a simulation, and if it isn't, then we're the only intelligent species in all the hundreds of billions of galaxies.

We need a special name for people like you.

>>9693568
>you are x
Nice rebutal, buddy.
See>>9692491

>>9691046
>How come there are no women grandmasters of chess?
Are you mental?

>>9691046
Women don't put in that much time, the question of why men are more in the upside extremes comes down to why anybody would get to that point. Disparities in intelligence fall to zero in the equation when experience gets high. Men are status driven, so they put in a ton of time to their craft. Obviously for sports men have an inherent advantage which can not be overcome, but intellectual pursuits women can play just as hard as men. Women simply don't because it is against their biology, it would be an uphill battle.

>>9692491
>>doesn't know what is intelligence
>Since we can't solve the hard problem of consciousness, we can't measure intelligence.

OK, I'll grant you, which mental processes count towards IQ is a subjective decision.
If "muscle memory" counted, I'd be considered "learning disabled".
But we _do_ get to decide what does and doesn't count.
That doesn't make it pseudo-science.

Besides, go take two different IQ tests.
Then have a dumbass take both.
Guess what? IQ is one of the few reproducible results we can get while studying the human mind.

>>9693734
Completely wrong.
Iq claims to measure intelligence while not being capable of answering these basic questions:>>9692491

Iq is pseudoscience.

>>9693740
Did you even read what I wrote?
Let's go over it again:
>>9692491
>>doesn't know what is intelligence
Intelligence is those mental processes we decide to lump together under the category of "intelligence".
>>doesn't define intelligence influences
I'm not sure what you're asking here, please state this more coherently.
>>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Answer: the human brain. If you want something more specific, see:
>>9693734
>>Since we can't solve the hard problem of consciousness, we can't measure intelligence.
And let's be honest. How many of the following "don't exist" in your little world?
>time
>gravity
>consciousness
>extra-terrestrial life

>>9693749
> Intelligence is those mental processes we decide to lump together under the category of "intelligence".
Just saying that intelligence is what we call intelligence doesn't get us any closer to having an actual workable definition.

>>9692491
>doesn't know what is intelligence
Are you saying that people measuring IQ have failed to define IQ or intelligence prior to research? For the purposes of IQ, it's the relative ability to solve problems and identify patterns.
>doesn't define intelligence influences
The amount of mercury your mom has intaken while she was carrying you affects your IQ. Your IQ is correlated with your simple reaction speed.
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Did Darwin explain "evolution physical mechanism" when he wrote the Origin of Species?

>>9693472
No. Now you're just using "it's pseudoscience" as an attempted justification for your claim that "it's pseudoscience."
You don't understand what pseudoscience means and should stop posting.

>>9691046
Chess appeals more to men since it is competitive, some say that women have a smaller SD in IQ, which leads to fewer geniuses, who are the people excelling at chess, it's more demanding than even science cognitively.

>>9692491
Kys you willfully ignorant pseud

>>9691161
I wonder if people actually think this.

>>9692608
Yeah we are trying to find out why it's male dominated. We already know women get btfo competing against men.

>>9693757
>Just saying that intelligence is what we call intelligence doesn't get us any closer to having an actual workable definition.
It's a CATEGORY.
And we get to decide which mental processes go into that CATEGORY.
It's not a fucking soul or something.

>>9692491
Read this book it answers all of that.

If 1% of all humans have X.

How come my pool of 1000 chinese has 10 persons with X, but my pool of 10 whites has 0 persons with X?
Do whites not have X?

>>9691093
>working together of women the power
Not do understand this I.

>>9693874
They appear to have failed in ordering themselves with regard to the viewer of the signs, read the signs right-to-left.

>>9691064
fpbp

>>9693873
In some cases X is something that varies quantitatively instead of being a binary does/doesn't have.

For example you're a brainlet who doesn't posses the ability to come up with coherent analogies. But your analogies are mildly more coherent than those coming from someone with a birth defect that makes them incapable of doing anything besides saying their name and drooling.

We can still use the ratio of people like you to literal drooling retards in order to compare populations even if neither of them contains an intelligent person.

>>9693799
Because male are more prone to genetic shit that causes retardation or partial hinderance to development such as the countless stuff that mostly effect men more then women due to men only needing 1 faulty x chromosome to mess up.

>>9693646
>Women simply don't because it is against their biology, it would be an uphill battle.

That's due to culture though anon.

>>9693851
You're straying into taxonomy territory. Just because you can group things doesn't give them a link or a common explanation.

>>9693646
or because there's no affirmative action in chess to give them an extra rook or let them always make the first move

>>9695091
>no affirmative action in chess
I mean white goes first so it's really the opposite of affirmative action.

>>9691046
There are currently 36 female players who hold the Grandmaster title.

>>9693604
>None with the 2500 needed to be a GM
and those are the 10 best players.


you failed at life

>>9691133
I liked chess up until the point where the fastest way to get better was memorizing moves rather then learning heuristics.

>>9695153
I dunno about actual numbers but judging from what other people are saying you might be looking at 'female gm' which is a less difficult title to get than 'gm'.

>>9695409
No. Judging from what other people are saying, no one really bothered to look up how many female GMs there are.

>>9691946
Thats not demonstrably true.

It's historically true that IQ tests went through heavy revision to account for gender differences. It first favored men, so they added more of the problems that women were better at until the average scores were equal.

Now it could be true that IQ tests do accurately measure intelligence variability in women, and this would mean that women are indeed more "average". But, it could be also be true that the added questions are easy for most women (and less so for men). If a subset of the problems were made trivial for women, these questions do nothing but add padding for female IQ. The female IQ curve will get artificially (and inaccurate) narrowed down towards the mean as comparatively less problems separate smart women to dumb women.

>>9691046
Because of the long history of chess originating as a strategy game for kings and princes which was never intended for women to ever play and through tradition has excluded them from being relevant in today’s competitive scene.

>>9691125
Fa/tg/uy here, if you're not too sure about chess I suggest you look into Bloodbowl. It's obviously not on the chess level but the smaller learning curve and SLIGHTLY lower levels of autism involved in the community should give you a pretty good idea if you want to move to more complicated board games.

How the fuck do I get good with the opening?
I've read all kinds of things on the middlegame and endgame and have slightly improved there but there is almost nothing
It seems even most of the grandmasters are clueless about what to do in the first 10 moves. There are 300 page books written about one opening alone but even the slightest deviation means you just wasted your time reading that.
>Yeah ummm, learn this exact opening pattern
>But whoops, your opponent just played a variation and you're now off this opening line
>Heh good luck kiddo

How the fuck do I get good with the opening?
I've read all kinds of things on the middlegame and endgame and have slightly improved there but there is almost nothing of value written on the opening.
It seems even most of the grandmasters are clueless about what to do in the first 10 moves. There are 300 page books written about one opening alone but even the slightest deviation means you just wasted your time reading that.
>Yeah ummm, learn this exact opening pattern
>But whoops, your opponent just played a variation and you're now off this opening line
>Heh good luck kiddo

>>9695983
>itzz da patriarki !11

>>9691093
>no verbs in sight
>no commas
imposible to make a sentence here

because chess is boring as shit holy fuck

>>9691046
Same reason there's no high-level women in the vast majority of pursuits in the world: few women have the fortitude and dedication to reach that height.

>>9695983
>for kings and princes
>somehow translates as all males
It was for higher classes overall, women played too.

>>9691151
You can just play online chess it's comfy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHFZOXiM9SM

>>9691064

>>9693534
>as an intellectual and an avid manga reader my brain instantly read this the correct way
>intellectual AND avid manga reader

You can only be one of those, anon

>>9696499
>>no verbs in sight
>working

Nice reading comprehension. Now back to class, recess is almost over

>>9691891
>Not science, sorry. Iq is pseudoscience.
Spotted the Neo-Marxist.

>>9692491

I have argued with you about this like a month ago.
I realise from your misspelling of IQ (it is an acronym, thus demanding capital letters) and this exact post that you are the same person.

One thing that high IQ predicts really closely is the ability to learn (and learn fast), i.e. if you had a high IQ you would have learned your mistake by now.

Yet a month later, you have not moved an inch and have failed to educate yourself on the subject at all - you are even pasting your old comments here, not even taking the time to phrase them out in a better way.

My diagnosis: You consistently get below 100 on even the terrible online IQ tests and have nothing better to do than trying to rationalise how this could be and your go-to answer is that IQ must be at fault, not you.

Women are inferior. This should be obvious.

>>9695260
Um, those are average scores. I'm just guessing but if the average of top 10 female players in China is 2492 that means at least some of those players are above 2500.

I'm certain that female Grand Masters are given different requirements than men which is why the thread was started but I think there's also a number of legitimate GMs among them.

I think if I were to rewrite OP it would be about world champions of which there have been none and only Judit Polgar ever broke the top 100

>>9691046
Very easy explanation. Average ability is pretty even, but male IQ has a much flatter bell curve. You end up with a lot more genius and idiot men (at least with respect to abstract problem solving). So if you only take the top sliver of all chess players, of course they will all be men.

>>9691046

because women have been oppressed and white men lived through privilege

>>9697989
Why would you come into a thread, not read it, and then post something someone else already posted?
I don't understand. Just read the thread before trying to have an opinion, it's not even long.

>>9698173
sorry to see it bothers you so much. just a reminder:
>Average ability is pretty even, but male IQ has a much flatter bell curve. You end up with a lot more genius and idiot men (at least with respect to abstract problem solving). So if you only take the top sliver of all chess players, of course they will all be men.

Women's brains work differently.

>>9691046
because chess is a useless endeavour and women have better things to do. only men would dedicate their lives to a game that they think is an intellectual dick measuring contest

>>9691125
>worthwhile
Depends on your values.

>>9697989
>Several times more men have an IQ of 115 than women
That pic can't possibly be right

>>9698189
No, I completely agree with that fact.
What annoys me is you came into a thread without reading it and posted something that was already posted. Just read next time, idiot.

>>9691090
the feels man, how could you?

>>9698278
ever hear the story of the fox and the grapes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_chess_players

>OP starts his thread with a false premise
>/sci/ eats it up anyway like the incels they are

poetry

>>9700686
>out of 1600 GMs, 36 are female
muh 2%

>>9697111

>>9691093
These women aren't stupid or disorganized, from their viewpoint they're in the correct order (since left and right are swapped for them, who are facing the other way). So the actual problem is that they're so into themselves that they never considered what their signs look like for other people.

>>9700554
she was pretty cute

>>9699040
The ratio is roughly 2:1 at 115 IQ, and 6:1 at 130 IQ.

>>9703486
Wow, that's crazy. So the natural ratio in STEM should be something like 5:1? Good thing I was born male. Would you happen to know the ratio at 160?