News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by bcrosby95 on Sunday January 01, 2023 @03:58PM (#34210796)
I've noticed #2 with my 4 year old. She won't do anything unless there's a girl doing it. My other kids don't seem to care though.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by PartiallyTyped on Sunday January 01, 2023 @05:55PM (#34211970)
There are some interesting studies about girls and women playing chess. When blind, the two sexes perform on average about the same, but when they know the gender of their opponent, girls and women underperform.

It is hypothesised that the reason behind this is because chess is a boys’ club, so to speak, and thus there is not a lot of representation.

Absence of representation means that it may seem that you are the only one doing XYZ, which in and of its own can be terrifying because we often feel that the odds are stacked against us (which is a self-fulfilling prophecy), or that we are held to much higher standards than others.

Personally, I enjoy seeing diverse representation even if I am not represented. I want people to not be afraid to pursue their dreams and goals, I don’t want implicit prejudices due to lack of representation either.

Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by jdkoeck on Sunday January 01, 2023 @06:12PM (#34212116)
I’ll bet this does not replicate, the effect of stereotype threat is notoriously overvalued. Don’t fall for junk science.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by Invictus0 on Sunday January 01, 2023 @07:11PM (#34212655)
Women that dedicate their careers to chess still dramatically underperform men at the professional level. There is even a different rating level and title system for women: women earning the "women grandmaster" title need 200 fewer ELO points than the grandmaster title for men. No woman has ever won the World Chess Championship, and there are far fewer female GMs than male GMs.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by dudeinjapan on Sunday January 01, 2023 @07:20PM (#34212708)
How do women and men do versus AI opponents, i.e. without any gender? Wonder if chess.com has the data?
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by Invictus0 on Sunday January 01, 2023 @07:37PM (#34212825)
Badly? AI is vastly superior to human capability, no human wins
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by icelancer on Sunday January 01, 2023 @09:25PM (#34213519)
We all get slaughtered. It's possible Magnus could make one draw with white against a not-current Stockfish on limited depth out of a hundred games, but that would be about the best any of us could do.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by zamadatix on Friday January 06, 2023 @07:06PM (#34283254)
Chess engines support the concept of skill level. Pretty much any chess program or app supports this out of the box, such as the aforementioned chess.com. The only times they are run unhindered are for analysis, engine testing, or fun.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by epivosism on Sunday January 01, 2023 @08:15PM (#34213072)
There's a very interesting point in the thread below which would resolve the question - we could use chess puzzles! If there is a mismatch between performance on puzzles with live results, it would be pretty solid proof that the effect is real. It doesn't have to be full on AI.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by icelancer on Sunday January 01, 2023 @09:25PM (#34213514)
Some women (Polgar for example) have argued the separate womens' titles significantly contribute to the gap in skill.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by lelanthran on Monday January 02, 2023 @12:26AM (#34214673)
I've always wondered about this, actually.

With almost all sports males have a dramatic physical advantage[1] so it's not really fair to have males compete with females.

With chess there is no physical advantage, so why keep separate tournaments for males and females? What is the reasoning for preventing males and females competing in chess?

[1] In the 90s, ISTR reading about a tennis match between a #3-rank female player against a #5000-something-ranked male, and the male player simply dominated. I wish I could find that article now, but it was a print mag and I don't remember which one it was.

Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by bee_rider on Sunday January 01, 2023 @08:00PM (#34212998)
While we shouldn’t fall for junk science, we also shouldn’t fall for cynicism as an excuse to stick to our priors. It might not replicate if you try to do so, but until someone does, we shouldn’t write it off.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by zeroonetwothree on Sunday January 01, 2023 @08:50PM (#34213285)
Surely the burden of proof should be on the side making the claim?
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by bee_rider on Sunday January 01, 2023 @09:14PM (#34213439)
I’ve in general grown somewhat averse to the “burden of proof points in some direction” line of thinking.

They are both making claims. (And I think usually most people are making some sort of claim, unless they are just nitpicking). One is claiming that they remember a study — pretty vague, and easily proven (as far as we can tell at least) by just showing us any study. The other is claiming that that study doesn’t replicate… without having seen it, which seems like a pretty high bar to clear.

Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by solveit on Sunday January 01, 2023 @10:48PM (#34214061)
Most studies in this reference class (social science) don't replicate, so I'm fine with that being the default assumption.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by bee_rider on Sunday January 01, 2023 @11:48PM (#34214487)
It is hard to speculate without knowing much about the original poster or the types of studies they read. Maybe they prefer “Nature Human Behavior,” who knows?
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by PartiallyTyped on Monday January 02, 2023 @10:01AM (#34218570)
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by bee_rider on Monday January 02, 2023 @07:02PM (#34225545)
One sort of annoying thing about this site is that it seems to be convention to ask for sources, but conversations quickly fall off the front page and so when you come back with the sources, nobody is left to respond! But this looks at least to me to be some good stuff, the second link appears to be at least somewhat of a replication.
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by joshuamorton on Sunday January 01, 2023 @10:20PM (#34213855)
And the claim in this case is "it does not replicate".
Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by ljf on Monday January 02, 2023 @03:32AM (#34215694)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.440

The study. Note that this is about taking equally matched players, and having them compete via the Internet without knowing the sex of their partner, then again knowing the sex.

Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by PartiallyTyped on Monday January 02, 2023 @09:57AM (#34218514)
This reads needlessly aggressive, and the accompanied downvotes seem unjustified.

In addition to the other studies published by Wiley, I have two more:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620924051

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617736887

Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by PartiallyTyped on Tuesday January 03, 2023 @02:01AM (#34228669)
@dang

Why is GP flagged but parent isn’t?

Parent adds nothing to the conversation, but apparently GP was worth removing even though it is now supported by 3 different sources.

Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by worldsayshi on Sunday January 01, 2023 @06:54PM (#34212527)
> There are some interesting studies about girls and women playing chess. When blind, the two sexes perform on average about the same, but when they know the gender of their opponent, girls and women underperform.

My guess is that it's due to how expectations affect how likely we are to enter flow state. If we subconsciously expect ourselves to enter a challenge in less than good/fair/even conditions we might be less likely to engage fully because we're using our attention for questioning ourselves/the situation.

Att least that's how I feel I myself work.

Re:Ask HN: Concepts that clicked only years after you first ... by camel-cdr on Sunday January 01, 2023 @07:14PM (#34212676)
I think I found the study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.440

And a related meta study that looks at sports in general: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146902921...