<Jim Bartle> I have never said that I already know the results of academic research, nor for that matter have I argued to adjust scientific methodologies so as to only find academic results that back up the initial hypotheses.

All I'm saying is: When I look around, I see differences between men and women. Men tend to be more talented than women in one area, whereas women tend to be more talented than men in another area.

Just to give some ideas: Men tend to have more talent in physical strength, women tend to have more talent in limberness.

When I see the performance of women at chess, I cannot help but observe that women are outplayed by men. To give all kinds of "external" (as you call it) or social factors to explain why women perform worse than men is I think much too far-fetched. My personal guess is that women are simply outperformed, or that men are better at calculating or something.

And also please notice that I'm not saying that ALL men are better at chess than ALL women. We're just talking averages here.

<But if I do a study I'd have to keep that bias out of my research, right?>

<It demonstrates a subjective belief that is unlikely to be budged by any logical arguments to the contrary.>

The only thing you're truly saying here is that people who disagree with you are merely having "subjective beliefs" whereas you rely on "logical arguments". Good luck in defending this preposterous claim!

<I've already given up on trying to defeat the sexists on this site with science.>

You again choose a negative word "sexism" to negatively describe your antagonists. But "sexism", the notion that individual talent in one area or another is (partially) dependent on his/her sex, really does make sense and it also can be based on science.

<They tend to not understand it.>

First decree: I relieve the President, the Vice-President, and the Secretary of Defense of their duties.

<jahhaj> I was waiting for this argument to come around, and I have arguments along this line before.

But seriously, can you come up with a good practical example that is applicable to women in chess? An example that proves your point about the interaction of internal and external factors?

<Open Defence> Good point.

<however one thing is certain for chess development .. one needs exposure ..>

I agree!

<so i really wonder if there is some inherrent difference between women and men chess players..>

Excuse me, but when you just said that chess is not just calculation and chess requires experience, how does that explain your doubt whether there are inherent differences between women and men in chess?

Or are you saying that men (on average) are better in chess simply because they practice more and have more experience?

This doesn't seem logical...

The way I see it is that this only supports the argument that there ARE inherent differences between men and women in chess (again, ON AVERAGE). Women and men use the same technique and tactics in chess as men do, they also practice the same amount as men do, and still women are outperformed by men!

<in other fields where there is equal opportunity there is no such visible difference in results>

Could you please give me examples?>> pick any career .. there are men and women who do well finance, medicine, engineering .. even traditional male bastions like factories etc...

<Open Defence> I'm not sure if your example of careers is very fortunate. After all, at your job you're not expected to give your 100% and work at your top all the time.

In sports, however, it is a matter of winning or losing. In individual sports especially (such as chess) the only reason why you can lose is simply because you're not as good as your opponent.

So I think sports are a much better example to compare the talent and achievements of men and women!

<the point is that maybe more girls need to play chess and avoid gender segregation at the initial stages .. i.e. boys and girls should play chess against each other and more young girls should be encouraged to play>

Why would girls need to be encouraged to play more than boys? It is not a taboo for girl to play chess, is it?

<Why would girls need to be encouraged to play more than boys? It is not a taboo for girl to play chess, is it?> in many countries girls are not encouraged to do much else than the traditional roles e.g. marriage, housework, kids (not to degrade that in anyway) ... I think the achievements of the Polgars seem to suggest that if girls compete with boys from the start in chess they dont necessarily fare much worse.. however when i started chess and i still see this in the clubs here .. girls seem to be slotted in girls only events rather than mixed events

<Open Defence> Yes and that's quite unfair. There are many jobs in which women can perform equally well or even better than men.

Take jobs that require multi-tasking for instance. There is evidence in neuropsychology that women are better at concentrating on multiple things simultaneously than men are.

But one job requires, another job requires that...and in the end we need to make an objective comparison between individuals irrespective of their gender whether the one is truly better than the other at a certain job.

<in many countries girls are not encouraged to do much else than the traditional roles e.g. marriage, housework, kids (not to degrade that in anyway) ...>

Of course women are much more than housewives and child-bearers, just like men are more than husbands and career-makers.

We should be careful not think too simple about the identity of men and women. Being a man or a woman does not simply depend on what you do.

You are not what you do, you are who you are.

<I think the achievements of the Polgars seem to suggest that if girls compete with boys from the start in chess they dont necessarily fare much worse..>

<gender stereotypes> unfortunately even in this day and age it is hard to break away from it

<Open Defence> Of course, men can develop that skill as well by experience, and I know that from my own background! I used to bartender when I was 18-19 years old, and my job was to memorize the orders of different tables, while also doing other tasks. I noticed that I got significantly better at it after a while!

But it is important to note that we are not talking here in terms of experience, we are talking here in terms of talent! What I am saying here is that under an equal amount of experience, men can still be better than women (on average) in one skill and women can still be better (on average) than men!

<<gender stereotypes> unfortunately even in this day and age it is hard to break away from it>

Yes, but it is very important for your own happiness not to think of these stereotypes too much. After all, the individuality that children display spontaneously shows that really we are more than just men or women.

They say that humans are different from animals in that they have self-awareness. However, is that a blessing or is that a curse? It can definitely be a curse when you try to change who you are by doing something you would not do spontaneously.

<as with other walks of life it is not quite possible in my opinion to say that men or women are inherently better in certain things>

Listen, Emperor, I have a lot of respect for your opinions and knowledge--usually--but this time you're plain wrong.>

<s4life> Really? What makes you think that?

<i.e., they are less interested in brainy stuff and even try to appear dumb-er to look cool.>

You're the one making an unfounded claim. I at least have Occam on my side in supposing that there should be no difference in playing strength between the sexes, given <equal conditions>.

On this point, one should consider the difference in playing strength between the strongest male and female players over the past 50 years. Women are nowhere near reaching their potential in chess yet.

<I recommend you first to try to understand the naïveté of your own arrogant words.>

<whatthefat> Occam's razor, huh? You need to open your eyes, man, because Occam is really on my side, not yours.

The differences between men and women are obvious. Their dimensions are different, their behavior is different, their hormones are different, their brains are different. How on earth could that NOT have any effect on the achievements on the chessboard?

<On this point, one should consider the difference in playing strength between the strongest male and female players over the past 50 years. Women are nowhere near reaching their potential in chess yet.>

Women are nowhere near reaching their potential yet? Say that to the women chess professionals! They're training all day and every day since their childhood and they're participating in plenty of tournaments. No way these professionals have been prevented in any way, shape or form to reach their full potential.

So what do you want to say to these women? That they're not trying hard enough? That the fact that they are women makes them insecure and so they perform worse? Don't give me such crap and tell me that you believe it yourself. Occam is on my side, not yours.

<I'm sorry, but I'm just not intimidated. After all, I'm arguing with a guy who just posted <Wow, Matthäus has a pretty wife> with an accompanying link, on his personal forum. I mean really, could you be any more stereotyped?>

What on earth is your point, if any? In case you didn't notice, I'M A GUY, and I happened to be attracted to this woman. She's cute!

Are my feelings a crime? NO

Did I disrespect her by saying that she's cute? NO

Therefore, does this reduce the validity of my arguments? NO

People like you who believe that men and women are equal except for "in their pants" are really people of the past. Learn to live with it.

Clearly you can't follow a simple statistical argument then. You're conveniently neglecting <how many> men are intensively trained in chess, as compared to women.

<People like you who believe that men and women are equal except for "in their pants" are really people of the past. Learn to live with it.>

I believe nothing of the sort. Rather, I see that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that women should be any less capable at an abstract activity like chess. The same argument applies to ability in mathematics and the physical sciences. Differences in the sizes of various muscle groups, and hormonal cycles, aren't relevant here.

<OK, go bother someone else now. I'm through arguing with you.>