In this context "Less Efficient" seems to be a politacally correct way of
saying they don't play as well as men.

"Jack Rudd" skrev i melding
m...
(Franky1998) wrote in message
...
I hope that the women reading this can be objective in responding to my
question, and don't think that I am a male chauvinist or something
similar.
To the opposite I am upset with that fact, so I am doing a researc on
this.


Define "efficient".

Jack Rudd

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in rec.games.chess.misc:


Do they ever object to your writing

Writing?



--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Joe Schoeman wrote:

Most women think chess is pointless, (they're probably right in the bigger
scheme), men don't think about this, we just like to play.

Still, millions of women like to play Chinese Checkers, Kalaha,
Mah-Jong, and other similar games, who - objectively - are just as
"pointless".

--
Kristian Ronge
d99, Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology
-"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for
economists." --John Kenneth Galbraith

(Franky1998) wrote in message ...
I hope that the women reading this can be objective in responding to my
question, and don't think that I am a male chauvinist or something similar. To
the opposite I am upset with that fact, so I am doing a researc on this.

Thank you,

Frank Lorenzo
PO Box: 502
NYC, NY 10116

Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players;
consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men
chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have
asked.

David Ames

From: Kristian Ronge
Date: 08/10/03 17:35 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Joe Schoeman wrote:

Most women think chess is pointless, (they're probably right in the bigger
scheme), men don't think about this, we just like to play.

Still, millions of women like to play Chinese Checkers, Kalaha,
Mah-Jong, and other similar games, who - objectively - are just as
"pointless".


Of course you are correct, but I think perhaps the point is that it's necessary
to expend a great deal of time and energy *before* one can *start* to play
chess at a reasonable level, and after *that* it's pointless.

Chinese checkers is pointless and has the added value of instant gratification.

Mark Houlsby

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...(to Marc Margolies):
From: "marc margolies"
Message-id:
are you sure she wasn't talking about your mentality, houlsby?

Well...DUH!!! Clearly, since I am a man, she was talking about me. Clearly,
since you're a man, she was talking about you, too. She was talking about
ALL men, you trolling moron.

You're really not good at this ****. Now might be a good time to stop.

"When a man has told all he has to say, the sooner he is silent the better."
--James Fenimore Cooper (Ned Myers)

"David Ames"

Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players;
consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men
chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have
asked.

Ah, but look at bridge. There may very well be *more* women bridge players
than men bridge players, yet there are very very few women among the world
class bridge players. Wonder why.

"Doug Wedel" wrote in message
...

"David Ames"

Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players;
consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men
chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have
asked.

Ah, but look at bridge. There may very well be *more* women bridge
players
than men bridge players, yet there are very very few women among the world
class bridge players. Wonder why.


I already explained. Different brain structure/function.

Bob Musicant wrote:
"Doug Wedel" wrote in message
...

"David Ames"

Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players;
consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men
chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have
asked.

Ah, but look at bridge. There may very well be *more* women bridge

players

than men bridge players, yet there are very very few women among the world
class bridge players. Wonder why.



I already explained. Different brain structure/function.



With all due respect, this hardly seems defensible at this level of
abstraction. We have a social phenomenon: men dominate chess at all
levels. We have a plausible scientific claim: men's and women's brains
are "structured" differently (although I'm not quite sure what this
means). You now have a reasonable hypothesis, that's all.

FWIW, I'm verys skeptical that there is a simple (single-factor)
explanation here, any more than there could be a simple explanation for
the observation that about half of the world champions had Jewish
ancestry. Or that only one has had Spanish for a first language, etc.

John

"John Macnab" wrote in message
news:rhChb.62429$pl3.1269@pd7tw3no...
Bob Musicant wrote:
"Doug Wedel" wrote in message
...

"David Ames"

Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players;
consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men
chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have
asked.

Ah, but look at bridge. There may very well be *more* women bridge

players

than men bridge players, yet there are very very few women among the
world
class bridge players. Wonder why.



I already explained. Different brain structure/function.



With all due respect, this hardly seems defensible at this level of
abstraction. We have a social phenomenon: men dominate chess at all
levels. We have a plausible scientific claim: men's and women's brains
are "structured" differently (although I'm not quite sure what this
means). You now have a reasonable hypothesis, that's all.

FWIW, I'm verys skeptical that there is a simple (single-factor)
explanation here, any more than there could be a simple explanation for
the observation that about half of the world champions had Jewish
ancestry. Or that only one has had Spanish for a first language, etc.

John

John,

The principle of parsimony, aka Occam's razor, suggests that in the case of
male superiority at chess, we not go hunting for alternative explanations
when an already adequate one exists, that being men's better natural ability
at spatial visualization. This is a thoroughly documented phenomenon,
research on which goes back many years. Are there contributions from other
sources? Most likely, but take away the difference that I am referring to
and the remaining difference is in all likelihood trivial, at least in
comparison with the primary source of the difference.

I don't know the explanation for the Jewish dominance in chess, or for the
dearth of Spanish-speaking champions.

Bob