Man, Woman and Chess.

[Biomega]

I just have the feeling that certain people in this thread feel they cannot be wrong because they have a ton of 'evidence' to back themselves up.

Everyone is wrong, if you take in a broader perspective. But it's better to have something to back you up rather than just mere words. Oh, boy, we are deviating terribly.

No, your use of chess is plainright absurd. ITS A GAME! One can train to be good at it while still suck at everything else.

I have to agree with this point. I have seen this documentary about a South-Asian boy where he learns to play Chess(while he averages at school -- not a prodigy). He can play without looking at the board, and know where the pieces are at any time given -- he challenges adult gamers, and even won this many championships that even the government gave him a nice home(for his family) as a prize or gift of some kind.



Anyone learns anything from a young age will become proficient in it(be it mathematics, music, art and etc). Remember the 10, 000 hour rule? The more you do it, the better you get at it.

 

[Kaze Araki]

All I'm saying is that using chess as the sole indicator of inate intelligence seems simplistic.

To use Chess as the sole indicator is indeed simplistic, but this is a strawman - as no one is actually claiming it as so. The topic at hand is Chess, and thus why the emphasis is put on it.

You Presented me with "Chess = intelligence, therefore men's greater chess ability = men have a higher inate intelligence level than women". To which I presented a paper that states that "Men and women do not differ in chess ability given equal conditions"

Let us be clear, the paper that you cited only asses the domination of males in term of statistic. The equal condition that you are talking about is from statistical point of view, not from biological context. This is important to note as in Chess, it is not a rare sighting when you see a teen prodigy demolishing a Grandmaster. The point being, at the highest level of Chess, practice means very little - it is the preparation that is crucial. Remember once again, the paper cited participation at early ages as the reason why male dominates the field - and this is the main problem that I have with the paper.

As I've said before. Chess can not be used as the sole indicator of innate intellectual ability.

Again, no one is arguing this. Chess can be used as an indicator because it is less subjective (as pointed out by Bilalic), but it is not the sole indicator. We are arguing using Chess simply because it is the topic of this thread.

Kasparov is the greatest chess player in history.

I for one disagree, the accomplishment of Bobby Fischer is more spectacular than any other World Champion that I know, in my opinion.

If chess is indeed the "best" way of messuring inate intelligence then it would stand to reason that Kasparov is more intelligent than the ones mentioned as they never competed on a high level of chess.

This is irrelevant.

I've stated numerous times that I completely disagree with the conclusions presented about chess and it's direct correlation to intelligence. However I've still stuck to the premise and presented you with evidence which states that there is no difference between men and women in terms of chess ability when the condidtions are equal.

Again, this is simply false. The paper only address the problem from statistical point of view, that is male domination can be explained statistically. However, it did not provide anything at all in term of "Chess abilities". If you want to compare "Chess abilities", you need to compare it on the highest level where intellectuality matter the most. On the lower and middle level, practice matter a lot, but on the highest level - it is a completely different story. The feat of Bobby Fischer and Vishy Anand cannot be explained statistically, as both of them defy the oddity with their genius. My point here is, while it is true that statistical approach can adequately explain male domination, it does not necessarily mean that men and women stand on the same level as you claim it to be (from biological context). The possibility still exist that male innate superiority is camouflaged by their numerical advantage. Because of this, the paper by Bilalic is more cautious and neutral - even though it support the statistical approach. And here I concede that, unless such innate differences is empirically verified, it is best just accept the statistical explanation.

I have no bias against Chess. I see it as a game that requires quite a few attributes that can be linked with intelligence nor do I deny that grand masters are intelligent. I simply question the suitability of chess as a sole indicator of intelligence. But I have already accepted your premise and argued out from that. You've seem to gotten hung up in the fact that I disagree with the premise rather than what I'm actually arguing.

Answered above.

I disagree with him, but as I said. Premise accepted, statement argued based on premise.

Answered above.

I've not made a single snide remark about chess. I've stated that I disagree with the premise that chess = intelligence. That is it. Even though I disagree with the premise I've accepted it for the discussion.

Calling a man intelligence is at par with a bear is snide enough, that is if we ignore the obvious falsity of the remark itself.

I personally like the game, the strategic elements and the need for creativity while playing it, but I do not agree with the assumption that you can messure intelligence through chess alone.

Answered above.

 

[Kaze Araki]

There is no evidence of men having a higher innate intelligence than women. Critics of Rushton and Jackson question their selection for the test, as well as the SAT's suitability to determine intelligence. The nearest thing to a conlcusion we have on the matter is "there is a possibility that there might be a slight difference in intelligence based on the fact that the male brain is slightly bigger than the female's" This was even admitted by Rushton.

From what I know, the current consensus is that the differences are minimal and negligible, not that there are no evidences for differences. The question is that whether these differences are innate or not, and I concede that this is hard to proves since there are many other factors that affect intelligences as well.

A 4.4 discrpancy can be explained in a multitude of ways, the tests being conducted were geared more towards men than women (unintentionally of course), the researchers themselves had a small bias and found what they expected to find, the selection simply wasn't balanced enough.

See below:

This is my main gripe with the chess arguement. It is indeed a game dominated by men, but why do we assume that intelligence has anything to do with it? Female chess players are a rare breed, and although you may believe this is because they simply do not have the intelligence to match the men, I can not help to think it has its roots not on the biological level, but the sociological level.

Let us compare the Chess argument with the following paper by Sohail et all.;

http://www.ayubmed.e...21-3/Sohail.pdf

Note I'm not saying Dr. Merim Bilalic is wrong about his assumptions. I'm saying his selection may stand in the way of a conclusive result.

I assume you are referring to Colom and Lynn here.

I can not disprove it and you can not prove it as there's no conclusive evidence for any of the arguements. All the experiments and papers posted, by both you and I, rely heavily on attempting to prove "innate" intelligence through the use of methods that are used to messure "percieved" intelligence. Chess is a skill that can be learned and developed over time, as I'm sure you will agree two men of equal intelligence will not be equal in chess if one man has played his whole life and the other just for 10 minutes. SATs and IQ tests contain questions where you would have to attain knowledge beforehand to answer correctly (math and word association).

Nevertheless, the argument that those with more experience will always win against the less experience is entirely not true in Chess, and this is the main problem that I have with your source. In higher level Chess, experience (in term of practice time) means very little - it is the preparation that matters, and it take a lot of ingenuity when it comes to preparation. This is why I am not entirely convinced that statistical approach is adequate in explaining the dominance.

With the sources we have both posted socioeconomic factors are quite important considering the experiments and tests being presented are based on a selection of test subjects. Who is in this selection matters quite a lot of the final results.

The study by Sohail et. al. is interesting in itself especially since here; the domination role is reversed.

 

[Undead-Cookie]

Maybe because Woman's are more emotional than Man?

 

[Kaze Araki]

I have to agree with this point. I have seen this documentary about a South-Asian boy where he learns to play Chess(while he averages at school -- not a prodigy). He can play without looking at the board, and know where the pieces are at any time given -- he challenges adult gamers, and even won this many championships that even the government gave him a nice home(for his family) as a prize or gift of some kind.



Anyone learns anything from a young age will become proficient in it(be it mathematics, music, art and etc). Remember the 10, 000 hour rule? The more you do it, the better you get at it.

Think about it once again, if practice is the argument here, then shouldn't the boy easily beaten by adult gamers? After all, adult gamers has higher practice time than the boy.

School performance is not a good indicator whether someone is a genius or not.

 

[Biomega]

Think about it once again, if practice is the argument here, then shouldn't the boy easily beaten by adult gamers? After all, adult gamers has higher practice time than the boy.

School performance is not a good indicator whether someone is a genius or not.

Let us say, that those adult gamers started gaming later in their life -- they do have other worries(jobs, families), and chess is a pass time for most of them.



Things are taught better when you are young; you absorb information a lot faster, and you are able to applied them quicker.



Let us take some factor into consideration, the growth rate of autistic children is increasing. And we all know those with afflicted with autism love to engage in activities that are mentally stimulating(Chess, for an example). They may or may not be good in school(in some field), but they have great skills in what they love to do. They even have better time bringing down adult gamers.



But I thought excelling in academia is correlated with intelligence. Strange.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Are we talking about professional Chess players here or just random dude on the street?

If the latter, than your example does not holds water.



Also, I personally know a not so bright person who has high grade academically.

It's just a matter of how you approach your lecturer.

 

[Biomega]

Are we talking about professional Chess players here or just random dude on the street?

If the latter, than your example does not holds water.

You meant the former? But why not?

 

[Kaze Araki]

I'm not sure how your example works; you mean an autistic kid beat non-professional chess players?

How is that a good example?

One train daily, the other hardly train - if any.



Why don't give an example on high level Chess?

In this area, practice means very little compared to preparation.

 

[Undead-Cookie]

I think that I may know a good example.

IE: Computer VS Human?

 

[Biomega]

Why don't give an example on high level Chess? In this area, practice means very little compared to preparation.

Uh, you put me in a fix. And I even forget what I was going to say next. Intelligence - chess - preparation - practice - female - brain - autism.

I think that I may know a good example.

IE: Computer VS Human?

Play the game, and hear your heart throbs when you see those lines.



Basically, this is(I think) how a professional thinks when they are playing. They basically know what you are going to do next, instinctually.

 

[Undead-Cookie]

Uh, you put me in a fix. And I even forget what I was going to say next. Intelligence - chess - preparation - practice - female - brain - autism.





Play the game, and hear your heart throbs when you see those lines.



Basically, this is(I think) how a professional thinks when they are playing. They basically know what you are going to do next, instinctually.

How? - By asking your self why did my opponent play that move.

Or by analyzing the next squares my opponent could move and what are the squares it would be able to spot on after that move.

I don't think that's magic.

Well, I heard that the world's best chess player lost against the Computer.

This isn't about practice, this is about how well you are able to analyze the board and your decisions.

Like Shikamaru from Naruto.