Why do Women have their own leagues for things like Chess?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

mdmcalister.pbworks.com/f/Checkmate - The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence
youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=1
chess.com/forum/view/general/paul-morphys-ratinggt2638
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because women are not only physically weaker, they are mentally weaker at the highest echelons.

They can't compete with men in anything.

Men are superior

It's funny because they claim to want equality in all these things then the mongo tranny beat the fuck out of some bitch in an MMA fight
Pure outrage, I went through 4 pairs of pants pissing myself

Because women are stupid so we let them play with each other to stop whining.

It's the same reason why liberals have the special Olympics. They can't compete with real men.

Because they can't compete with men at those levels

Women r dum

There are studies that show that female chess players beat male chess players when they don't know they are playing against a man

So basically it boils down to prejudice, stereotypes and inherent advantages of the male-dominated system.

There are studies that show you're a massive faggot. I hear sources and experts also agree on this.

This.

Even my fiancé has this belief.

/thread

I can confirm an anonymous source close with your thinking can confirm that other anonymous sources and experts also agree.

women lost 2x more games when they knew it was a man(of same skill level) they were playing against and won when they thought it was a woman (of same skill level)

So they're so emotion and weak-minded that they can't even keep from psyching themselves out during a game of chess

Men win again

Final redpill.
Females are not humans.

>SOURCE?????

mdmcalister.pbworks.com/f/Checkmate - The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport.pdf

Read the Result section, Performance

So what you're saying is women are stupid and let their fee fees (omg scay man im gonna lose) interfere with any ability they have at the game? Got it.

>Women are subhuman.

Because size of pools are completely different
I.e. starcraft in murrica vs starcraft in korea

Not necessarily stupid, it's a kind of self-flufilling prophecy :)

Leagues are segregated because men's side has actual competition which drives people to get better. Women's leagues are smaller and super casual which leads to one or two teams/individuals to be drastically better than everyone else so then they lack the means to practice against actual competition.

While a lot of people want to shit on women here, the truth to why the "best" women are still shit compared to men isn't only because men have physical and mental advantages over them. This alone is not enough to explain why there's such a massive gap between a world class women's team at any given sport getting mopped by high schoolers. The "best" women literally have no competition in their own league, and with nothing to strive for, they stagnate. A decade of mixed leagues with women's and men's teams would be humiliating for the former, but it would give a massive jumpstart to boost actual competition in gender-segregated leagues instead of lazy big fish acting like they're hot shit in a little pond. This is all assuming that women's teams don't flat out die altogether from being rolled by men for ten years, of course.

>The April 2017 FIDE rating list includes 1552 grandmasters, of which 1517 are male and 35 are female.

Because otherwise you'd never see a single woman at the highest level of play. It's not a bad thing though. We want to see women in competition, so we make womens events.

they still lost more than average.

what that proves is that not only theyre stupid but also emotional unstable

>we need (((science))) to gather the evidence and still don´t get the point

sometimes it just lays in front of you

...

>this fucking cherry picking
there are tons of data that contradict this too, just because you have a position backed by science doesn't mean its the only position backed by science, welcome to the scientific process, where intelligence is not so easily quantifiable.

neat.jpg

saved, thanks based guy who probably wants to lynch me,.

This should be pretty obvious to anyone who has a job that requires abstract thinking. You have an excuse if you're unemployed or do mindless bullshit for a living. Men are just better at focusing in on and understanding narrow, specialized problems. Granted, women may tend to be more well rounded in other areas, so outside of IQ women really aren't going to be statistically worse for most jobs.

>there are tons of data that contradict this too
wow!
look at the proofs and data that you're posting
you sure showed me

underrated post

>I'm so well read on this topic heres my study by a well known skeptic of equality
>whats that? why don't I know any of the evidence that contradicts this?

fucking figures a leaf would read one study and believe it without doing any research. It's almost like you're too stupid to google, the arguements and counter arguements are easily available.

Lynn isn't even 100% wrong, his methodology just blows and nobody can reliably repeat his results.

there are other studies that show as much, if you actually gave a fuck about the topic like I do instead of just searching for something that vindicated what you already believe you'd know all this already.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

you're sure implying a lot about who i am and what i know - almost as if you're building a man made of straw

>provide cherry picked and unballanced opinion
>get called out on it
>s-strawman
time to get the rake.

excellent point. would you make the same statement in regards to climate change? or would you just dismiss the offender as one more filthy heretic in need of redemption by crucifixion and fire ?

I would if any of the media and critics of climate change where aware of how severely buttfrustrated you republicucks have made their lives by destroying public perception of the scientific issues and muddling the waters by pretending its a conspiracy. Right winger obsfucation and fraud infuriates skeptics of climate change skeptics because it makes their job harder and spread disinformation.

If you want to know what actual skeptical arguements against ACC look like and how to actually sift through all the rightwing media bullshit then watch this series.

youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=1

fpbp, also praise him.

cherry picked? unbalanced?
sounds like someone doesn't like the facts as they're laid out on the table.
you're making me out to be someone i'm not and misrepresenting the argument i've laid forth - sounds like a strawman to me.
women have smaller brains with 17% less neocortical neurons and 40% less neocortical synapses as shown in my post , which is referenced with studies at the bottom of the image
but that's probably what you'd call an "unbalanced" and "cherry-picked" opinion, eh?

speaking of facts and studies, i don't see you providing anything besides a wikipedia link.
since i'm such a nice guy i'll provide you a list of more ways that men and women are biologically different, besides men being smarter and more capable at anything they choose to be

But neither are liberals. What does it all mean?

"Equality"

>durr
so you're so stupid you think either that your own study doesn't count, because it's on the same wikipedia link you are desparaging, or I'm not strawmanning you, because you are not producing any other pieces of evidence, only a fucking meme image that has nothing to do with the topic or the thread; female intelligence. Instead of moving the goalpost and ignoring data you don't like, you have to explain how its wrong. thats how sicence fucking works leafnigger. it's called peer review.

>When standardized IQ tests were first developed in the early 20th century, girls typically scored higher than boys until age 14, at which time the curve for girls dropped below that for boys.[17][20] As testing methodology was revised, efforts were made to equalize gender performance.[20][21][22]

>The average IQ scores between men and women have little variation.[19][23][24][25][26] However, the variability of male scores is greater than that of females, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.[8]

Nearly no women in the top
2-3 times more males in 130IQ
5 times more males in 145+ IQ

could somehow explain it, couldn´t it?

F P B P
P
B
P

>what is averaging
are you illiterate as well as stupid?

i'm not disparaging wikipedia, i'm disparaging you for providing a link and nothing else.
i see a lot of crying and stamping your feet in your posts but i don't see you providing any data to the contrary of what i've posted.
women are indeed dumber and less capable on average than men.

You are an overemotional asshole immune to logic and rationality.

I´m not even sure if you are a women, because you didn´t tell me that i won´t get laid so far, but i guess you get along well with them.

Cunt.

>matched for ability
So this does not account for the massive difference in ability between top male and female players. ONE woman in history has been able to compete at the highest level: Judit Polgar. No other woman has even come close.

Today's top rated woman is Hou Yifan and she isn't even a 2700. It's pathetic.

...

Incorrect sir. Paul Morphy (1839-1884) had no competition at all and he became in many grandmasters (Ben Finegold for example) opinions the greatest chess player of all time.
Morphy played roofus and doofus almost every game. Even when he played the greatest players of his time he won with ease.
>Against Henry Edward Bird in a match, Morphy scored 10.5/12
>Morphy scored 14/17 in matches against Adolf Anderson
>Against Louis Paulsen in tournament and match play, his record was 9.5/12
Female chess players are bad because they aren't like Morphy, they are women :/

Sauce: chess.com/forum/view/general/paul-morphys-ratinggt2638

clever girl

>Global Rule 3 says about anthropomorphic not allowed outside of Sup Forums
>Pepe is a anthropomorphic character and its widely allowed on all the rest of the boards

Fucking mods with his autism disorder.

Because of Title IX

congratulations. you're not brainwashed quite to the point of religious zealotry unlike most of your ilk to whom obfuscation and hysteria are accepted as the reasonable center. see if you can settle them down a bit and we might actually be able to compromise on some issues

Also something else to add, womens titles.
>To become a Womens Grand Master you have to maintain a 2300 ELO (Regular GM title is 2500 ELO)
Women can attain the regular GM title but the fact that the WGM title exists is problematic

If there's a sport that's purely skill based it is chess.

There is zero luck factor in chess. I mean how far can you go with the mental gymnastics.

Its not that men are smarter its that men are more likely to be smarter. Men are also more likely to be dumber. Female IQ is more rounded to a middle while male IQ can be very high and very low

It Is conspiracy though.

South Australia is about to spend tens of millions of dollars of an Elon Musk battery to hook up to a wind farm.

This will solve the 'energy crisis' there.

Australia (south Australia in particular) has the largest uranium deposits in the world and some of the largest coal deposits in the world.

What (((energy crosis)))?

They suck.

>There are studies...
And I can't help but notice a lack of those studies being posted...

>anthropomorphic
It's meant for furries, you mong.

Found the plebbit faggot. GTFO

>Men are also more likely to be dumber.
this is an important point i don't believe has been brought up yet
men are much more likely to be super-geniuses and much more likely to be super-retards, as compared to women

If that's the case it's a shortcoming of women and not men. Psychology is as important to chess as the strategy itself. Hell, Bobby Fischer defeated Boris Spassky why psychology alone. He crushed him so hard with just psychology the guy was driven mad during the game and commented that florescent lights were actually bugged equipment.

playing only against other women ensures that they will not be able to progress past a certain point. as with everything else you have to compete with better players than yourself to improve.

both judit polgar and hou yifan primarily play against men and are very good.

>Much more likely to be retards.
It's not even even split. It's favored towards geniuses.

Women are property

The best women often compete in male tournaments though. Polgar did so almost exclusively and Yifan does so from time to time. They have more than enough competition.
It's very hard to compare masters from different era's. Morphy was something special and he was years ahead of his time, I'll give him that, but I think he'd get his ass handed to him by Carlsen or Anand using modern theory. Anyway, as great as he is, Morphy is an anomaly. Players usually do develop through tough competition. The best example is probably Kasparov who grew immensely as a player through his lengthy matches with Karpov.

An interesting thought I read recently is that Karpov might have grown in a similar way, had Fischer chosen to defend his title in 1975 (and then in 1978 and 1981), and maybe Karpov, not Kasparov, would have been considered the greatest chess player of modern times.

...

There isn't a single guy who would be worried about playing against women. It's women who hold women back.

So anthropomorphic characters that doesnt have fur are allowed?

correct - i should have worded that post differently
i meant that relative to women, men are more likely to be at one end of the IQ spectrum or the other, while women generally cluster around the middle of the spectrum

>"Behold! A man!"
Diogenes pls...

No, I get what you mean. I totally agree on that point.

I think if Morphy had like a month to learn modern theory he could go toe to toe with Carlsen and easily Anand. Also I think Karpov V. Fischer would make both stronger because Fischer was like Morphy, if his mind hadn't destroyed him he would have become a god among men (like Kasparov but better).
(I think Karpov was a fantastic player but Fischer was a beast)

/thread

You try to use the excuse that they have no competition? How does that explain Olympic teams being embarrassed by high school boys?
Lack of competition would play a small role in it. As soon as puberty kicks in, it's no longer a level playing field.

The female founder's answer is that there aren't enough female chess players to stand a statistical chance to beat the men who are the very best. The women's league is to encourage women go play chess in a positive environment so that someday women will be top 20 competition level

as an aside to your post:
I posit that if a woman's "social truth" is in opposition to reality the social truth will win out 99 times out of 100, which is part of the reason why women are less intelligent than men.

>scored in her own team's basket
much worse than that.
White is trying to score on the hoop on the left side of the court and Blue should be trying to score on the hoop on the right side of the court. White shoots, Blue gets the ball and makes an error in thought - and this is the important part - EVERY SINGLE OTHER GIRL WHO HAS BEEN PLAYING THIS GAME THEIR ENTIRE LIVES goes along with this error in thought without even a second guess. After Blue shoots at the wrong team's hoop, White continues this horrible error in judgement that Blue started by trying to score on their own side.

This is one example that shows how important the social truth is to women. They will believe in what the majority believes rather than reality.

Why hasn't anyone brought up womens titles? WGM, WIM, WWC, etc.
Womens Grand Master for example requires a average of 2300 ELO while regular grand master requires 2500 ELO. This is a HUGE difference in caliber for similar titles.

>positive environment
And that's the problem. That's not a competitive environment. They should be integrated into the male leagues and forced to play at that level. If they win they win; if they lose they lose; if they quit they quit. The entire idea women should be treated specially so they can "compete" is really anti-competition and does them no favors.

Same reason we have "little league" and "peewee football" ... children can't play on equal footing with adults.

Because no one cares about women's league. Everyone expects it to play at a much lower level. Those that stay in that league have decided they don't want to try to improve beyond it.

If there were two men's leagues with the same conditions people would definitely look down on the men's league as weaker and not as "held back."

That fucking webm though kek

female athletics really are something special, aren't they?
people openly admit that men and women need to have different sports leagues, but seem reticent to admit that women are less capable mentally as well as physically

What the fuck just happened here?

Hou Yifan the womens world champion is rated 2666 ELO. Now I love Hou, and shes a great player but even the WWC isn't as good as most super GM's. Pic related is her

there would be 1/1000 top chess players that are female

that's the female brain in action my smelly friend

i would MATE her if know what i mean
*wink, wink*
*nudge, nudge*

You may be right. It's pretty sick how Morphy refused to play anyone without odds for the last year or so of his active career and still kicked butt left and right. Modern chess is insanely accurate though, compared to the romantic style of that time. A comparable level of accuracy didn't really exist until Capablanca. It takes a lot more to be world champion now than it did back then. Of course the resources are better but it's unclear imo how that would balance out.

Fisher is similar. There's no doubt that in his prime he was dominating his competition to an extend rarely ever seen before (maybe since Morphy), but I cannot help but think a good part of his reputation today comes from the fact that he quit while he was ahead. We never got to see him lose. It is not at all clear to me that he would have been able to dominate chess for decades to come, like kasparov did for 22 years. In fact I think Karpov might not have beaten him in 1975, but he might very well have in 1978.

The sad thing is we'll never know.

the question i have is that if given sufficient prep-time, could Morphy beat a modern chess computer?

Asians have more neocortical neurons than whites but white men still dominate chess. Why is that Mr. Smartypants?

This is so wrong it's ridiculous.

> women and men do play in the same matches.

> female events and titles are simply lowered bars to reward them for sub par play.

> women are in no way banned or restricted from normal events except that they're simply worse.

I am deep in the chess world and "competition" isn't the problem.

the first thing that jumped into my mind was that Asians enjoy playing Go instead of Chess
also, jews are above both asians and whites when it comes to intelligence but i don't know any jew games that i can reference that they would excel in
as an aside, the top female player is asian, as referenced by and i'll thank you to call me Mister Smartypants - i don't like it shortend to Mr.

You know the answer to that user.

So why not apply that same logic with women? The player base for women is about 5% that of the men's player base. Going by that the scores women achieve seem fine. If the male player base was only 5% of what it is we wouldn't see many of the greats we've seen in the past.

Because Asians aren't creative and don't know how to think outside the box. They try to calculate and iterate like a computer, except the human brain isn't particularly suited to that. It's the same reason Asians aren't able to invent and innovate in general.

whites still dominate top tiers of IT, engineering, architecture, math, physics

the smart asian meme is a lie comparing genpop whites vs top asian uni students.

go to china if you want to see the 'genius' asian s spitting and crashing their cars with constant stunned goldfish face

innovation IS intelligence though, solving problems in newer, better ways isn't creative. it's smart.

education will teach you how someone else solved a problem. intelligence will teach you how to solve it better your own way.

if women could compete with men there wouldn't need to be a seperate league for them.
since they can't compete with men, they need to be segregated in a seperate league with less demanding requirements for GM, IGM, ect

it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that female's have a smaller player base than men do, which is what i think you were implying