IIRC Kasparov beat Deep Blue in their first match. Deep Blue won the second match but Kasparov was anything but a gracious loser. In addition to the opening move issue glee mentioned I believe Kasparov complained that Deep Blue was programmed to specifically beat Kasparov. That is, a bunch of chess masters consulted with IBM to tweak Deep Blue’s programming to take maximum advantage of Kasparov’s playing style. Presumably with this programming Deep Blue would have lost to a second or third ranked grandmaster had it played one immediately following the match (Deep Blue wouldn’t be sufficiently prepared for the new player’s style). I guess Kasparov’s feeling is Deep Blue should have been programmed generically to face any player and win and he doesn’t feel it could do that the day it won (although I think he would grant that Deep Blue would still probably smoke 99.99% of the world’s players…just not the best of the best).
I am aware that the improvement for women’s performance in many sports is improving at a faster rate than men’s, however I wouldn’t be surprised if both genders reach a relative equilibrium.
There is another factor nobody here mentioned in many active sports: Heart and Lung capacity. Men’s hearts are 33% bigger than women’s, they can pump more oxygenated blood to the muscles at a greater rate.
I think men beat women in most sports where the genders compete head to head for two reasons.
One is that only recently have women been allowed to compete in sports. And far more men do sport competition than women. Thus male champions are drawn from a much larger pool of candidates.
The other is that men tend to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. As women ‘first’ enter sports in large numbers, their best times/performances tend to improve rapidly, as more skilled women raise the bar of performance. This makes it look like women are catching up with men, and leads to extrapolations where “by the year 2013, women will beat men in the marathon” and so forth. It doesn’t work out that way. Women improve until they start to run up against the physical limitations of their bodies. Then the rate of improvement drops off, similar to the men’s. The problem is, women are (on the average) still smaller, weaker, and less aggressive, so their best possible marks are going to tend to be lower than men’s best possible marks.
And, of course, men set the rules in most sports they value. Even sports like gymnastics, men and women do different events (floor exercise is not an exception - the judging criteria are different).
Some activities, women have the physiological advantage. Ultra-long distance swimming, touch typing - women rule.
Notice that neither activity is in the Olympics.
Mental activities like chess, I gotta believe it is just because more men play chess than women. Same for other kinds of activity. Historically, more males have been authors than females, even though females tend to have better verbal skills. Why? Because for most of human history, women were too busy being pregnant to write. If your infant mortality rate approaches 50%, you can’t afford to let any fertile women in the area go unfecundated.
FWIW.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - I suck at chess, I couldn’t complete a marathon to save my life, I have never been published, and any number of women could kick my ass ten times out of ten at practically any sport you could mention. Please - don’t hurt me.
Considering that high school girls are now swimming so fast that they would have taken the gold medal in the Olympic 100 freestyle (and possibly others - I didn’t check them all) any year before 1956, I think the OP is a bit too quick to declare male superiority. (The girls swam 500 yards faster than the men’s Olympic results for the *400 meters * before 1928.)
Until recently, women have not had the opportunity, training, and encouragement to participate in sports that men have had. With a larger pool (NPI) of potential atheletes, of course men tend to do better.
Just wait 50 more years and we’ll see.
(Note: to compare the times you need to compensate for the fact that Olympic distances are in meters and the high school results are in yards.)
I dunno. Women appear far more flexible and graceful in these sports to me. Those are two attributes in which I think women exceed men. Yeah, I know those competitions are “subjective” - that doesn’t mean a decision can’t be made as to who is superior (flexibility can certainly be measured objectively).
I’d give you a run for your money.
That’s no excuse for not phrasing the question in an polite manner though. This bugs the hell outta me. anything else I have to say would belong in a pit thread though.
</hijack>
When top grandmasters play, they have already analysed hundreds of games by each other. Computer databases are very useful for this, as it is easy to code chess games into a computer, then replay them.
Although these players can play any style, they do have their (human) preferences, so you try to either come up with a new move, a new plan or just steer the game into something they don’t like as much as you.
Kasparov was unsettled by having no information on what openings had been programmed into Deep Blue. By contrast, Kramnik insisted on seeing the whole openings ‘book’ (thousands of moves!) that his potential computer opponent ‘Fritz’ would be using. (I do n’t think that match has taken place yet, but it’s a good bet that Kramnik will win).
Deep Blue wasn’t just a chess program - it was a research project. Put crudely, each of the 64 squares had a separate processor, and it was how they all worked together that interested IBM.
Fritz and other chess programs have far more modern computers to work with, so again it’s hard to compare. But all computer chess programs use the ‘brute force’ approach, so quicker processor = deeper analysis = more dangerous opponent.
Computers don’t understand chess, but they do play accurately!
Deep Blue was formidable, but there are known anti-computer strategies (see my earlier link to kasparovchess.com and look at how GM Smirin takes out a top program by patiently building up a king-side attack.)
I mean, my wife can find her damn car keys without my help…
I cant say the reverse is true.
'cause they don’t have dicks to put 'em in?
Oh, sorry, that’s the answer to the question “why don’t women have brains?”
k2dave wrote:
>The simple (though unpopular) reason is that men and women are different.
Indeed. One area where women are obviously far stronger is in sexuality. Here’s an interesting quote on the subject from David Deida’s book INTIMATE COMMUNION, in a section called “Feminine Sexual Superiority” in the last chapter:
"Outside of the bedroom, men and women may argue about which is the stronger sex. But inside the bedroom, there is no competition: the Feminine form and force is sexually far superior to the Masculine.
"I’m not merely referring to the obvious Feminine superiorities: deeper and more numerous orgasms, a greater proportion of sexually excitable flesh, and emotional responsiveness that far exceeds most Masculine involvement with sex. I’m talking about something more subtle and more demanding. I’m talking about the native ability of the Feminine to communicate love through the body. Most men can’t match it.
“The Feminine is the master of the bodily communication of love, of complete and ecstatic surrender in love.”
More material like this can be found at http://www.deida.com/
In the SLC Olympics most of the top male figure skaters were doing quads.