Men and Women Play Chess at the Same Level Why Segregate Them?

@michuk said in #1:
> I did Further Mathematics at college and in our Advanced Statistics class we were taught about this thing called mean of population. They said the mean of two population samples of people cannot be the same even if the samples are from same population of things.

The mean of two population samples CANNOT be the same? That is obviously incorrect. Of course it CAN be the same -- in the end we are talking about stochastic matters. But your statement is even incorrect in a more fundamental sense. The sample mean of a random sample is an unbiased estimator of the population average. Therefore, the sample mean gets closer and closer to the population average when the sample gets bigger. If you take two very large random samples of chess players, the means of the two samples will be very close to each other because they both approach the same population average.

> In other words if you segregate chess players and calculate a Gaussian distribution with mean and standard deviations in two population samples you will always have a gap.

That's simply incorrect.

@Enthorian said in #21:
> The mean of two population samples CANNOT be the same? That is obviously incorrect. Of course it CAN be the same -- in the end we are talking about stochastic matters. But your statement is even incorrect in a more fundamental sense. The sample mean of a random sample is an unbiased estimator of the population average. Therefore, the sample mean gets closer and closer to the population average when the sample gets bigger. If you take two very large random samples of chess players, the means of the two samples will be very close to each other because they both approach the same population average.
>
>
>
> That's simply incorrect.

It is not incorrect. We are not talking about stochastic matters. We are talking about normal distribution, that is the whole basis of the calculation of chess ratings, your statement makes any further discussion with you totally and utterly pointless.

Just telling me my statements are incorrect doesn't make your statements correct or mine wrong.

@Enthorian said in #21:
>In other words if you segregate chess players and calculate a Gaussian distribution with mean and standard deviations in two >population samples you will always have a gap.

>That's simply incorrect.

The Gaussian distribution of two of random samples from a population will never be equal but it will sit within a range that can be verified through hypothesis testing. The confidence level of this testing increases as the interval decreases and a small interval will imply the means are closer, it is incredibly difficult in real life to have means from random samples of the same population to have the same exact mean, the difference is either significant or insignificant based on the hypothesis testing.

@michuk said in #1:

> If men and women played in the same tournaments the rating gap would disappear. Don't you agree?

I don’t think you understand math. If there’s a gap between men and women currently, that gap will still exist if you combine the two pools. What would change the gap is higher levels of women playing chess.

It is archaic thinking to separate men and women in chess. Totally ridiculous. In my opinion. xxx

1. Men and women have more or less the same brain power.
2. Men are more technical, can handle stress better, and are more competitive.
3. Men and women affect each other - they are 'the other half' of one another, it will affect the results.

It's mainly a matter of interest in chess, and women tend to be less interested. It's not a matter of social conditioning. The more gender egalitarian a society is, the greater the difference in personality between men and women. Interests are probably biologically influenced.

People should listen to women on this topic, otherwise it's like white people declaring that racism isn't an issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess
chessdailynews.com/why-is-there-a-need-for-girls-or-womens-tournaments/
en.chessbase.com/post/why-chess-tournaments-can-be-hostile-for-women-and-girls
www.amazon.com/Chess-Queens-Champion-Greatest-Players/dp/1399701371

U B TR0LLN BRO

@michuk said in #1:
> If men and women played in the same tournaments the rating gap would disappear. Don't you agree?

U B TR0LLN BRO ...

@michuk said in #23:
> The Gaussian distribution of two of random samples from a population will never be equal but it will sit within a range that can be verified through hypothesis testing. The confidence level of this testing increases as the interval decreases and a small interval will imply the means are closer, it is incredibly difficult in real life to have means from random samples of the same population to have the same exact mean, the difference is either significant or insignificant based on the hypothesis testing.

Are the populations of male chess players and female chess players random sub-populations of the population of chess players?