22 Apr 10
Originally posted by PBE6Increase in mass is presumably accompanied by an increase in volume (unless the density increases) which in turn leads to an increase in surface area. Increased surface area must lead to more cerebral cortex, which might be disproportionately increased due to the folds and wrinkles.
Interesting, I'll have to try and access it tonight after work. I'm especially interested in the explanation that links brain mass and general intelligence for a few reasons:
1. The cerebral cortex, which plays a key role in memory, attention, perception and thought, is a thin sheet 2-4 mm thick full of folds and wrinkles. I don't see how a random 100 g in ...[text shortened]... ferentially through some mechanism, in which case the hypothesis is much easier to believe).
22 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Maxacre42I feel like I'm pulling a KellyJay here (yikes!), but I didn't read the article because I would have to pay for it, and I don't want to. If you want to purchase it for me, I'll most definitely read it. However, I did re-read this post and I have some additional comments.
I agree completely, but Chess is above all, a visuospatial experience, you move and calculate things in your head. You don't need to be gifted at solving puzzles to be good at chess because of the massive influence that knowledge has on the game, but logically it's still a gift you need to be the best in the world.* There is a reason the ratio of male-fe ing requires good general intelligence and strong visuospatial abilities" (p. 235).)
Chess is above all, a visuospatial experience
I think this is a reasonable assessment.
There is a reason the ratio of male-female genius is of 10-1 (or is it 20-1? I forget).
This can only be explained as a function of the variance in intelligence in men, not the average intelligence, for two reasons:
1. The average difference in IQ between men and women identified in the abstract you provided was only 4 IQ points.
2. A "genius" is an outlier by definition, and as such the average does not provide much information about one.
Regardless, the fact that the number of male geniuses is greater than the number of female geniuses is irrelevant to most any argument about chess performance.
The main hypothesis in psychology today is that since men have bigger brains (by 100 grams on average when mass is equal), they basically have slightly more max processing power.
Although surprising to me, this is possibly correct. Of course, this only addresses the outliers in the group since you're talking about "max processing power" and not "average processing power". Again, while fascinating, this has no bearing on chess performance. The question is whether or not you can use it.
Obviously I don't know the answer, but all the facts certainly point in one direction;
They don't. Statisticians use information collected from individuals to make statements about groups, not the other way around. For instance, the fact that the average height of males is greater than the average height of females in no way implies that the tallest person in the world is male. Similarly, I must concede that the current statistics do in fact show that men out-perform women in the chess world. However, that in no way implies that a woman cannot be world champion. In light of this, what exactly does it mean that "men are better at chess than women"? On average? Considering the individual nature of the game, what does this mean? Moreover, why does this matter? What predictions could be made from this information with any certainty?
I think this is what raises the hackles with questions like the one posited in the OP - the terms of reference are so badly defined and the statistics are utilized so poorly that the question and even the answers themselves remain devoid of meaning while remaining thick with vitriol.
22 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DiophantusIncrease in mass is presumably accompanied by an increase in volume (unless the density increases)
Increase in mass is presumably accompanied by an increase in volume (unless the density increases) which in turn leads to an increase in surface area. Increased surface area must lead to more cerebral cortex, which might be disproportionately increased due to the folds and wrinkles.
True.
which in turn leads to an increase in surface area.
True (if the density doesn't increase to compensate). However, only an increase in surface area of the cerebral cortex might matter.
Increased surface area must lead to more cerebral cortex
Not true...
which might be disproportionately increased due to the folds and wrinkles.
...but possible.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by bellaluccaInstead of arguing to highlight the difference between women and men, i argue the exact opposite. Chess is one of the few sports arenas where the sexes can compete on relatively fair grounds. There is undoubtedly evidence pointing to the guys having a small advantage. But COMPARED TO ANY OTHER SPORT, the biological advantage is so marginal that it's not relevant. This is a HUGE ADVANTAGE FOR CHESS, and should be marketed by FIDE accordingly. The fact that FIDE has installed these women titles and that there are all these women only tournaments at ANY LEVEL is just a disgrace for chess. Chess should motto equality between all.
Somebody told me that the best 50 chess players in the world are all men. My girlfriend would like to learn chess but thinks it is cruel and aggressive. Maybe chess is linked to testosterone. If it is, i aint got much testosterone!. Any girls dissagree?
If FIDE argued equality between the sexes as above then it should naturally follow to abolish:
-all female titles.
-all female only tournaments
-a Female World Champion title
Chess is bigger than your d@@k. Don't pride yourself on a biological advantage. Tell her chess is not cruel and aggressive. It's and art and sport that has a 500 year history and that reaches across all boarders and languages. Not learning the basics of chess is simply a miss out. Teach her the basics and then beat the b@@ch.
1.h4!
23 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6hehe fortunately, I have access to those papers for free, I'm lucky! I think my wording highlighted the wrong part of my point, but for me, the main reason for men having the better chess potential on average was their proven superior spatial ability (this is universally accepted), not the brain size. That's it. I stumbled on the paper about male vs female brains while researching the matter, and added it as additional supporting evidence. (also because I thought it was interesting). Everything you say here is absolutely right, a female could become world champion, but it would be a statistical anomaly, it would definitely go against the odds. I guess what I mean by ''men are better at chess than women'', I mean that the top 50 or 100 players in the world will be mostly populated by male, forever. I guess that's what my prediction is and I truly believe that 🙂. Don't get me wrong, I love women, trust me.
I feel like I'm pulling a KellyJay here (yikes!), but I didn't read the article because I would have to pay for it, and I don't want to. If you want to purchase it for me, I'll most definitely read it. However, I did re-read this post and I have some additional comments.
[b]Chess is above all, a visuospatial experience
I think this is a reasonable a e answers themselves remain devoid of meaning while remaining thick with vitriol.[/b]
When I made the comment about the male vs female ratio of genius', I should have included the citation, it wasn't coming from me. Here are some things mentioned by the British researcher Rushton.
"I don't think it has any real implications for education policy or schoolwork," he said. "In fact, females actually get better grades than males.”
Plus, he doesn't think the IQ difference would show up in everyday activities. "For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of jobs, it really doesn't translate into very much," he said.
But when it comes to Nobel Prize winners, he said that men could outnumber women 10-to-1. "Where it will really show up is at the very high end of the distribution," Rushton said.
Rushton has left the door open for opposing views and findings that might contradict his new study.
"I wouldn't say it's the last word. We really do need more research on it before we can be absolutely certain," Rushton said.
''Women needn't feel despondent, however, as the scientists believe women can achieve just as much as men - as long as they work harder.''
I'd like to conclude by saying that Rushton is a controversial scientist, he claims differences of intelligence between races. I don't think we can draw definite conclusions from his research or (Lynn's), but when I say : ''all the facts certainly point in one direction''. I mean it, and a better way of picturing what I meant would be to picture a scale.
Evidence of female having an advantage (in chess) = Some are hot, so it might be distracting, or a gentlemen might not make a full effort beating a girl.
Evidence of equality = not much! It's obviously possible, but this is what needs to be proven if anything. .. chess in an individual activity, so a freak woman could take the title, but who would argue that women are better at tennis or golf in general? Of course chess is fought on much more equal grounds. And I can't say it's not completely equal, but facts don't seem to point in this direction at all.
Evidence of men having an advantage = The top 1000 chess players, better spatial ability, larger brains and better visuospatial episodic memory (women have better verbal episodic memory). The question is: are these facts meaningful? They might not be, but all in all the combination of them seems pretty meaningful to me.
I agree with that the big question would need to be more clearly defined though.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by Maxacre42I found this very interesting paper, which thankfully was freely available on the web (yay free!) so I could read it:
hehe fortunately, I have access to those papers for free, I'm lucky! I think my wording highlighted the wrong part of my point, but for me, the main reason for men having the better chess potential on average was their proven superior spatial ability (this is universally accepted), not the brain size. That's it. I stumbled on the paper about male vs female ...[text shortened]... g question would need to be more clearly defined though.
"Visuo-spatial abilities of chess players", Andrew J. Waters, Georgetown University, May 19, 2007 (In Press, British Journal of Psychology)
http://www.sahklube4.hr/1.pdf
Here are some parts I found interesting, but feel free to read the entire paper (it's relatively short).
Abstract
"The extent to which the acquisition of expertise in knowledge-rich domains, such as chess, can be influenced by general individual characteristics, such as intelligence, has remained unclear. Some previous studies with children have documented significant correlations between chess skill and performance on some psychometric tests, such as performance IQ (Frydman & Lynn, 1992). However, we found no evidence for a correlation between chess skill and visual memory ability in a group of adult chess players (n=36, age = 28.4). This finding, together with other data in the literature, suggests that there is surprisingly little evidence that chess skill and visuo-spatial ability are associated in adults. Thus, visual memory ability, and perhaps visuo-spatial intelligence, may be relatively unimportant factors in the long-term acquisition of chess skill."
Discussion
"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the performance of highly skilled and less skilled adult chess players on a psychometric test. In this study, visual memory ability did not correlate with chess skill. The performance of master-level players, the elite of the UK chess world, on the visual memory test was not better than that of the other players. This finding suggests that visual memory abilities, and perhaps visuo-spatial abilities more generally, are relatively unimportant factors in the long-term acquisition of chess skill. At the very least, the data indicate that individuals can become exceptional chess players without having exceptional visual memory abilities."
...(cont'd)...
"In sum, given the conflicting evidence, we believe it is too early to say whether good visuo-spatial abilities are necessary for strong chess play. Clearly, these results are of significance to the broader debate about whether domain-general abilities – whether innate or acquired - are necessary to the acquisition of a high level of expertise in knowledge-rich domains, such as chess. This issue has seen a resurgence of interest in recent years (e.g. Ceci, 1990; Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Howard, 1999). However, it is likely that only detailed longitudinal studies, which are yet to be conducted, will be able to settle the question."
23 Apr 10
More interesting ideas - while it may or may not be the case that general intelligence helps with chess, it seems to be the case that chess helps with general intelligence!
http://kasparovchessfoundation.org/Studies/index.html
(I didn't find any links to free studies here :'( but I would be interested to read them if anyone does!)
23 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by PBE6I read it quickly, but I can't comment for very long ( I need to finish a research proposition on pathological gambling today.)
I found this very interesting paper, which thankfully was freely available on the web (yay free!) so I could read it:
"Visuo-spatial abilities of chess players", Andrew J. Waters, Georgetown University, May 19, 2007 (In Press, British Journal of Psychology)
http://www.sahklube4.hr/1.pdf
Here are some parts I found interesting, but feel free to read the itudinal studies, which are yet to be conducted, will be able to settle the question."
Here are a few remarks :
- It demonstrates wonderfully that memory isn't that important in chess. Which means I could remove that part of ''evidence'' in the scale I made up. However, I'd love to see Capablanca, Carlsen or Fischer, people with notoriously amazing memories, who went farther in chess than anyone else, be part of that study. Maybe memory isn't important to become very good, but it is to become the very best?
- I don't think it's all that relevant, but it doesn't compare between male and female.
- The test is on visuospatial memory, which is only one aspect of visuospatial ability. Visuospatial ability means : pertaining to the ability to understand visual representations and their spatial relationships. (key word : understand) The study does a great job at showing how unimportant memory is, but the part of IQ tests dedicated to visuospatial ability is probably the best way to calculate it today, and the studies on chess players using that method do show a correlation.
I hate how they say ''Thus, visual memory ability, and perhaps visuo-spatial intelligence, may be relatively unimportant factors in the long-term acquisition of chess skill."
They pretty much just throw in ''and perhaps visuo-spatial intelligence'' without anything to support that claim. They say :
''At first sight, our finding appears to go against some previous data that have
suggested a correlation between visuo-spatial ability and chess skill in a sample of chess
players (e.g. Frydman & Lynn, 1992). How, then, do we reconcile our findings with the
previous data? We suggest two possibilities. First, our task tapped visual memory,
whereas the performance IQ measure of Frydman and Lynn would have tapped a wider
May 19, 2007 12
range of abilities. Thus, some component of performance IQ, unrelated to visual memory,
or even visuo-spatial abilities in general, may be associated with chess skill in adults.''
Again, they downplay the role of visuo-spatial abilities for no apparent reason. It's actually that part of IQ test that is the most reliable and validated.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by Maxacre42It demonstrates wonderfully that memory isn't that important in chess. Which means I could remove that part of ''evidence'' in the scale I made up. However, I'd love to see Capablanca, Carlsen or Fischer, people with notoriously amazing memories, who went farther in chess than anyone else, be part of that study. Maybe memory isn't important to become very good, but it is to become the very best?
I read it quickly, but I can't comment for very long ( I need to finish a research proposition on pathological gambling today.)
Here are a few remarks :
- It demonstrates wonderfully that memory isn't that important in chess. Which means I could remove that part of ''evidence'' in the scale I made up. However, I'd love to see Capablanca, Carlsen or ...[text shortened]... 's actually that part of IQ test that is the most reliable and validated.
This would be a terrible experiment. The three players you mentioned that purportedly have "notoriously amazing memories" are also three of the best performing chess players of all time. If you took a random sample of chess players (even grandmasters) including these three and didn't find that outstanding chess performance and memory correlated highly at the top of the range, you'd have to fire your technicians. Even if you included only the 100 top performing grandmasters of all time in the sample, what conclusions could you draw that would apply to chess (even "the very best" chess) in general? Remember, even weak grandmasters are outliers - strong and super GM's doubly so.
I don't think it's all that relevant, but it doesn't compare between male and female.
I agree, the paper isn't specifically relevant to a comparison between male and female chess players. However, the hypothesis is that men outperform women based on better visuo-spatial ability, and this paper concludes that chess performance does not correlate with measured visuo-spatial memory (as you mention later on, it's true that visuo-spatial memory is only one component of visuo-spatial ability and so a sweeping statement about the impact of all aspects of visuo-spatial ability on chess performance is premature - more on that later).
The test is on visuospatial memory, which is only one aspect of visuospatial ability. Visuospatial ability means : pertaining to the ability to understand visual representations and their spatial relationships. (key word : understand) The study does a great job at showing how unimportant memory is, but the part of IQ tests dedicated to visuospatial ability is probably the best way to calculate it today, and the studies on chess players using that method do show a correlation.
I believe you are referring to the paper by Lynn ("The general intelligence and spatial abilities of gifted young Belgian chess players.", Frydman, M. & Lynn, R. (1992), British Journal of Psychology, 83, 233-235). If that is the case, then it seems you are correct if you are talking about children, but it seems you are not correct if you are talking about chess players in general because, as the paper discusses, there have been no such studies:
"In sum, the data from adults do not consistently demonstrate a correlation between chess skill and intelligence. In particular, there are no data which support a link between chess skill and visuo-spatial ability assessed using a psychometric test. In addition, no studies have been conducted to determine whether highly skilled adult players – including masters – perform better on psychometric tests than less skilled adult players. Therefore, we aimed to add to this literature by investigating whether one component of intelligence – visual memory ability – was associated with chess skill in a sample of adult chess players."
I hate how they say ''Thus, visual memory ability, and perhaps visuo-spatial intelligence, may be relatively unimportant factors in the long-term acquisition of chess skill." They pretty much just throw in ''and perhaps visuo-spatial intelligence'' without anything to support that claim.
I can understand your frustration with this statement. While the paper presents evidence that excellent visuo-memory ability is not a requirement for excellent chess performance in adults, it does not address visuo-spatial ability in its entirety. I don't think it is unreasonable for them to cast doubt on the assumption that excellent overall visuo-spatial ability is a requirement of excellent chess performance since they have demonstrated that at least one aspect of visuo-spatial ability has little impact in adults, but I agree this comment could easily be misconstrued as asserting overall excellent visuo-spatial ability has little impact altogether. However, they do redeem themselves in their conclusion:
"In sum, given the conflicting evidence, we believe it is too early to say whether good visuo-spatial abilities are necessary for strong chess play...However, it is likely that only detailed longitudinal studies, which are yet to be conducted, will be able to settle the question."
They say:
''At first sight, our finding appears to go against some previous data that have suggested a correlation between visuo-spatial ability and chess skill in a sample of chess players (e.g. Frydman & Lynn, 1992). How, then, do we reconcile our findings with the previous data? We suggest two possibilities. First, our task tapped visual memory, whereas the performance IQ measure of Frydman and Lynn would have tapped a wider range of abilities. Thus, some component of performance IQ, unrelated to visual memory, or even visuo-spatial abilities in general, may be associated with chess skill in adults.''
Again, they downplay the role of visuo-spatial abilities for no apparent reason. It's actually that part of IQ test that is the most reliable and validated.
It sounds like they are addressing the fact that the IQ measure employed by Frydman and Lynn evaluated several abilities, not just various aspects of visuo-spatial abilities. According to the the www.kasparovchessfoundation.org link above, practicing and studying chess seems to have a positive impact on general scholastic performance, reading ability, memory, verbal reasoning skills, mathematical problem solving, cognitive ability, etc... It is then not unfathomable that if the reverse relationship might hold for visuo-spatial ability, then this relationship might also hold for other abilities measured when determining the correlation between IQ and chess performance. The second discussion point which you did not quote seems to single out "motivation to engage in large amounts of deliberate practice" as one possible candidate:
"Second, our data were from adult players whereas Frydman and Lynn’s data (and Frank & D’Hondt’s data) were from children. Visual memory skill and visual-spatial
ability may be associated with chess skill in children but less strongly in adults. Thus visuo-spatial skills may be important in the early development of chess skill (i.e. when domain knowledge is low), but ultimately other characteristics may become more important (e.g. motivation to engage in large amounts of deliberate practice, Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993) such that associations between these visuo-spatial abilities and chess skill erode over time."
23 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6Don't you think that to become amazing at chess, you need to start as a child? The studies we discussed may in fact imply that you need those abilities to become good at chess, but once you get there, you use much less of it. What do you think? If having a better performance IQ as a child means the child learns the game faster, wouldn't that have a lasting impact over a lifetime? Also, could it be possible that since girls presumebly (?) learn chess slower because of lesser innate visuospatial ability, less of them keep on playing? (we like doing things we are good at and also, seeing potential in ourselves in doing something motivates us to keep doing it)
[b]It demonstrates wonderfully that memory isn't that important in chess. Which means I could remove that part of ''evidence'' in the scale I made up. However, I'd love to see Capablanca, Carlsen or Fischer, people with notoriously amazing memories, who went farther in chess than anyone else, be part of that study. Maybe memory isn't important to become very go uo-spatial abilities and chess skill erode over time."
I'm just hypothesising here, but I don't think the researchers considered this possibility yet 😉
I just remembered, I learned chess when I was a kid because it was part of the math class curriculum. The boys were instantly dominant over the girls, by a wide margin too. Consequentially, the boys loved the game and the girls hated it.
23 Apr 10
Originally posted by Maxacre42It's a very interesting possibility. I think the Laszlo Polgar and his daughters Zsuzsa, Zsofia and Judit would agree wholeheartedly with the first part. Laszlo's whole hypothesis was that geniuses are made, not born, and basically used his daughters as guinea pigs. The result was three of the strongest women GMs ever to play the game (with Judit being ranked 10th in the world in 1996 with an Elo of 2675).
Don't you think that to become amazing at chess, you need to start as a child? The studies we discussed may in fact imply that you need those abilities to become good at chess, but once you get there, you use much less of it. What do you think? If having a better performance IQ as a child means the child learns the game faster, wouldn't that have a lasting ...[text shortened]... ust hypothesising here, but I don't think the researchers considered this possibility yet 😉
12 May 10
Two points that may have been missed or not emphasized enough.
#1) Even if women and men, on average, were of equal intelligence, it's pretty well established that the bell curve for male intelligence spreads wider. More male idiots, but more male geniuses. And since chess is a game that appeals to the above average, where success requires being many SD to the right of average, it only stands to reason that the median male chess player is better than the median male chess player. It's because you're drawing from a non-standard pool. Same reason why the median blackjack player you will see at a casino is an idiot -- if you like blackjack and you aren't an idiot, you get kicked out.
#2) Chess is a brilliant competitive exercise where men and women may compete as true equals. Use that as a selling point to your GF.
12 May 10
Originally posted by Morphyesque"Even if women and men, on average, were of equal intelligence"
Two points that may have been missed or not emphasized enough.
#1) Even if women and men, on average, were of equal intelligence, it's pretty well established that the bell curve for male intelligence spreads wider. More male idiots, but more male geniuses. And since chess is a game that appeals to the above average, where success requires being man ...[text shortened]... ise where men and women may compete as true equals. Use that as a selling point to your GF.
You mean we're not? Do you think men are intelligenter, or women?
"it's pretty well established that the bell curve for male intelligence spreads wider"
Give me some source for this scientific established fact. Do you really mean that women are more homogenous than men?
"Chess is a brilliant competitive exercise where men and women may compete as true equals."
I agree to this, but do you really believe it yourself?
13 May 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasHere is one of the most valid studies on the variance between the sexes, in short, like he said, more male geniuses and more male idiots. In the top 2%, twice as many males as females, even though the average intelligence is similar. (slight advantage to male)
"
"it's pretty well established that the bell curve for male intelligence spreads wider"
Give me some source for this scientific established fact. Do you really mean that women are more homogenous than men?
Deary, I.J., Irwing, P., Der, G., & Bates, T.C. (2007). "Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979." Intelligence, 35(5): 451-456.
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_papers/2007/Deary2007Intelligence451-456_Brother_sister_sex_differences.pdf