Chess rating: 1417
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 1
|Fri Dec 26 2008 8:46PM | edited: 8:55:22 | MsgID: 10573654|
I've got an entry on my blog about Male/Female players..and I often get visitors visiting this link and have found a link tracked back to my entry:
This entry is based on what you'll read in these quotes and on the hotlink from Scienceblogs, you can read the complete article, written a few days ago.
Three years ago, Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University, claimed that genetic differences between the sexes led to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end". His widely derided led to his dismissal, but is views are by no means uncommon. In the same year, Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn conducted a review of existing studies on sex differences in intelligence and concluded:
"Different proportions of men and women with high IQs... may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds for which a high IQ is required, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize winners and the like."
Among them is Merim Bilalic from Oxford University. Himself a keen chess player, Bilalic smelled a rat in Irwing's contention that men dominate the higher echelons of chess because of their innate ability. In an elegant new study, he has shown that the performance gap between male and female chess players is caused by nothing more than simple statistics.
Every serious player has an objective rating - the Elo rating - that measures their skill based on their results against other players. Bilalic looked at a set of data encompassing all known German players - over 120,000 individuals, of whom 113,000 are men. He directly compared the top 100 players of either gender and used a mathematical model to work out the expected difference in their Elo ratings, given the size of the groups they belong to.
The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you'd see that difference close substantially.
Overall, the women actually performed slightly better than the model predicted and the top three in particular were playing well ahead of expectations. From positions 3 to 73, the men have a small but consistent advantage, wielding a competitive superiority that slightly exceed what statistics would predict. From the 80th pair onwards, the advantage shifts back to the fairer sex.
Please click on the link here to read the complete article. The link will open in a new window.
Chess rating: 1612
Give chess goodie
|Thu Jul 31 2008 12:45PM | MsgID: 9705709|
I kind of meant that when putting "any given day" in to the sentence but on reading my post again can see that it does not read that way.
Absolutely agree about the run of games theory though, the only way to decide is over a run of, probably at least 10 games and then only if the winning margin was wide enough to state the decision categorically.
It is interesting that I have played a couple of people who are "better" players than me by value of the fact that their rating is consistently higher than mine yet I have a 100% record against them.
Equally I have played a few players who are consistently lower rated than I but can't beat them for toffee! I think playing styles also come in to play here!