Quote:
Originally Posted by rickroll
i know you want it to be this way,
No, I genuinely don't care too much. I'm much more interested in matters of class/wealth than the identity stuff. I just like to argue, and it seems like you're there with me on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickroll
but it's simply not true, you average female has an elo 10 points lower than your average male
If you include the low ratings of all the girls/young women who give up earlier than the boys (which is primarily because of the social aspect, as far as I can tell), that may be true. All you need for a rating (like 90% of tournaments in the US aren't ELO-rated, they are USCF-rated, a similar system) is to play one single rated tournament, and you keep that rating forever.
Chess.com and lichess' ratings aren't ELO ratings, and I doubt either place knows the gender identity of every account. Ten points is such a small amount, less than a full game's swing. Particularly with the chess.com (and formerly ICC) rating system which is inflated all the way to ~3200 rated blitz for the top few.
I think I didn't make myself clear, but I'm referring to adult women who take competitive chess somewhat seriously. That's a stronger group than adult men who are the same. I can't be bothered to look for evidence beyond my anecdotes atm, but, as someone who's been to hundreds of live chess tournaments, the countless number of dudes who stick around forever and are rated between like 900-1400 must have an effect. Like I inferred earlier, if they were girls, they'd be more likely to quit at 500-1000 instead (and not because they're just too shitty at it) and keep that rating forever as a bit of data in your study.
I'm not qualified to speak to the role testosterone plays in physical activities like sports and a board game that produces physical effects in a serious player like chess. I neither believe nor disbelieve the stuff you're saying on that.
Last edited by Karl_TheOG_Marx; 01-10-2024 at 10:25 AM.
Reason: clarity