bboard

Posted by sureanem

I have never claimed otherwise. Of course it would (probably) be possible to teach them mathematics and have them reach a given benchmark, but it would be a far better use of time to help the gifted ones. In practice, I think both would be pretty bad because I have next to no teaching experience, but I digress.

Posted by sureanem

to create the intellectual equivalent of womens' soccer.

Posted by sureanem

Passing calculus is "highly educated" now?

Posted by sureanem

Also, "given the chance" is misleading. They'd have far more resources spent on them than the normal students, so it wouldn't be as if they'd be competing on equal footing. All you'd end up doing is spending inordinate amounts of money to replace conscientiousness.

Posted by sureanem

...they suck.

The national teams consistently get beaten by teen boys. The reason I can't find any links for normal teams is simple: they don't even bother playing against them.

Utter shitholes with hardly enough money for food manage to scrape together half-decent soccer teams, so I don't think it's about money. And surely, not all teen boys' teams can have better coaches (let alone funding) than the bloody national team, even if they're women?

Posted by creaothceann
Well, how much of a solution is VirtualBox (et al)?

Emulation already works for DOS games.

Posted by tomman

In other related news, the clock is running out for Jessie - LTS phase ends in one year and one week from now on (that is, June 30th, 2020). If Saki still survives to that date, maybe it's time to consider something else, maybe learn Arch, or simply ignore it as noone has hacked my shit and will not bother since you can't mine buttcoins on an (slightly overclocked) Pentium-MMX/200, and if you ever breach into its filesystems, feel free to steal all of my porn doujinshis (which are backed up anyway).

Posted by sureanem

Chess is hardly physically intensive, and they're terrible there too, so it's wouldn't be unprecedented if they indeed were.

Posted by sureanem

They get curb stomped while playing against youth teams with far worse funding and coaches. They could play against even better teams, but they don't because they'd get curb stomped even worse and it would be an utter disgrace to the "sport". 9-0 is not very good optics already, so imagine if they'd get twice that.

This argument sounds reasonable but it rests on a controversial assumption. It requires that there should be innate differences between men and women in the intellectual abilities required for success at chess. The topic of gender differences in cognitive abilities is a hotly debated one, which lacks conclusive evidence (for example, Geary 1998; Kimura 1999; Kerkman et al. 2000; Pinker 2002; Spelke 2005; Summers 2005; Lachance & Mazzocco 2006; Ceci & Williams 2007). Even if such differences exist, it is unclear which, if any, intellectual abilities are associated with chess skill (for a recent review, see Bilalić et al. 2007). Whatever the final resolution of these debates, there is little empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of differential drop-out rates between male and females. A recent study of 647 young chess players, matched for initial skill, age and initial activity found that drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar (Chabris & Glickman 2006).

gap = model(n, X, Y);

Pool X = getMalePool()
Pool Y = getFemalePool()
abs_error = 0
sum_predicted = 0
sum_real = 0

for n in 1..100:
    predicted_gap = model(n, X.size, Y.size)
    real_gap = X.members[n].skill - Y.members[n].skill
    abs_error += abs(predicted_gap - real_gap)
    sum_predicted += predicted_gap
    sum_real += real_gap

print("Absolute error: %f", error)
print("Average accuracy: %f", sum_predicted / (sum_real*1.0))    // This amounts to ~96%

Posted by sureanem
I did, two posts ago:

for German players, the median male score is 1560 while the median female score is 1254 (gap = 306)

This could hardly be caused by any outliers, now could it?

Posted by sureanem

Posted by wertigon
So with your own calculations you find that the mean R² is about 0.74.

This means in your own words that the model explains for 0.74 proving, at the very least, that there is a strong correlation between pool size and skill gap.

Thank you! :)

Not the mean R², just the R².

What does the second sentence mean? That the high R² proves the model is accurate, even if it happens to perform worse a model which does take into account the skill gap?

Posted by sureanem

Oh, and your "other hypothesis"? Women are worse at chess? Yes, this is already a fact. What is your explanation to this? That women inherently are worse at chess? Nope, not holding up according to multiple studies.

Which "multiple studies"?

Posted by sureanem

And yeah, there's a reason I prefer MATLAB (actually Octave) or Numpy over shitty, shitty excel. :)

Then perhaps you could use your expensive software then and calculate that expression I posted?