Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Discuss anything you like about women's chess at home and abroad.
Paul Buswell
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:56 pm

Women's Hour

Post by Paul Buswell » Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:29 pm

BBC Radio 4 this morning (Thurs 23 Dec) had ten minutes on why women do not match men at chess. Interviewees = Bill Hartston, Angela Eagle. The programme invites comments and views.

Actual time was 10:35 - 10:45 approx. You should be able to pick it up on Listen Again on bbc.co.uk

PB

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Women's Hour

Post by Carl Hibbard » Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:08 pm

Paul Buswell wrote:BBC Radio 4 this morning (Thurs 23 Dec) had ten minutes on why women do not match men at chess. Interviewees = Bill Hartston, Angela Eagle. The programme invites comments and views.

Actual time was 10:35 - 10:45 approx. You should be able to pick it up on Listen Again on bbc.co.uk

PB
A slight repeat Paul so merged into the other topic
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

LozCooper

Re: Women's Hour

Post by LozCooper » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:10 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:
Paul Buswell wrote:BBC Radio 4 this morning (Thurs 23 Dec) had ten minutes on why women do not match men at chess. Interviewees = Bill Hartston, Angela Eagle. The programme invites comments and views.

Actual time was 10:35 - 10:45 approx. You should be able to pick it up on Listen Again on bbc.co.uk

PB
A slight repeat Paul so merged into the other topic
I thought it sounded familiar :?

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri Dec 24, 2010 1:59 am

Mr H could be in trouble from another quarter other than chess.

A few years ago when I was writing for a Speedway magazine (my other great love)
I cracked a gag about train spotters.

The feedback was so fierce I had to write an apology. (ME...An Apology!).
After this comment I hope the Train Spotters unite and give him hell.

I bet there is a Train Spotters forum out there somewhere complaining that
they always get linked with chess players.

"I belatedly had a phone call from the ECF office asking me to find someone
but by the time I'd found a volunteer..."

Loz why did you not jump in yourself right away.

The official coach of the Britsh Womens Olympiad team surely carries some clout.
I'm sure with all the experience you have gathered you could have argued quite fiercly
in favour of the women's game.

Also You could have slipped in the bit about Mr H knowing sod all about modern chess
and his lack of series involvement in the game for the past 20 years. Which I agree.

We have to replace the old guard, everytime they appear chess goes
back another 10 years.

Perhaps a missed chance there of booting at least one of them into obscurity.

Alan Kennedy
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by Alan Kennedy » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:34 am

There was some interesting research on the subject at http://tinyurl.com/2dao85p
by Merim Bilalic et al. The conclusion was that the reason for the difference was not necessarily due to the initate difference in ability but because there were fewer women playing chess and therefore less players at the extreme end of the distribution curve. What did Mr Harston make of that?

LozCooper

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by LozCooper » Fri Dec 24, 2010 9:06 am

Geoff Chandler wrote:
"I belatedly had a phone call from the ECF office asking me to find someone
but by the time I'd found a volunteer..."

Loz why did you not jump in yourself right away. .
I did. But it's not my show so I can't choose the guest list and they wanted someone who's female to argue with Bill Hartston.

The official coach of the Britsh Womens Olympiad team surely carries some clout.
[/quote]

If you mean England that was Andrew Greet.

Perhaps a missed chance there of booting at least one of them into obscurity.[/quote]

I was happy to go on the programme, as were other female players but the producer wanted someone articulate (and female)as opposed to a strong player (surely you can be both) :?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:28 am

Alan Kennedy wrote:There was some interesting research on the subject at http://tinyurl.com/2dao85p
by Merim Bilalic et al. The conclusion was that the reason for the difference was not necessarily due to the initate difference in ability but because there were fewer women playing chess and therefore less players at the extreme end of the distribution curve. What did Mr Harston make of that?
An interesting statistical test would be to take a random sample of male players from the rating list, so that you have equal male and female players. Logically, the random sample of male players should also be normally distributed. How would a combined rating list of these two sublists look? What would be the new rating distribution? Do we still find male players ahead of female players? Suppose this was repeated for many random samples of male players. Can you come up with any sort of statistical basis to confirm the fact that it's just a numbers game, with discrepancies explained by the normal distribution? My hypothesis is that you will, but I haven't the time or the inclination to do the work! :oops:

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by IanDavis » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:44 am

Late last night I actually sat down and listened to the debate. It struck me as very unoriginal, uncontravertial, and reminiscent of a schoolyard/classroom. Exactly what I would expect to find on this dire program. The normal environment of youth chess was (and I imagine is) not conducive to the recruitment of female players. Bill Hartson's assertion would require an actual study to ascertain its validity, but it doesn't strike me as ridiculous. The question of the environmental origin is also key there, as people tend to practice what they enjoy or excel. It wasn't great PR, but I don't know what one could have scripted to have made it good PR. Perhaps more creative minds could suggest something which Radio 4 should have broadcast on the topic.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:53 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:An interesting statistical test would be to take a random sample of male players from the rating list, so that you have equal male and female players.
If you selected say 100 each of male and female players from the ECF grading list, you would find the female list over 50% of the active players.

Unlike the heyday of Hartston and the Eagles, if you took the top 120 active ENG players you would find three female players. Is it relevant that they all have brothers of at least CM standard?

It remains true though that modest performances by male standards are enough to get female players into international events and teams.

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by IanDavis » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:01 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Alan Kennedy wrote:There was some interesting research on the subject at http://tinyurl.com/2dao85p
by Merim Bilalic et al. The conclusion was that the reason for the difference was not necessarily due to the initate difference in ability but because there were fewer women playing chess and therefore less players at the extreme end of the distribution curve. What did Mr Harston make of that?
An interesting statistical test would be to take a random sample of male players from the rating list, so that you have equal male and female players. Logically, the random sample of male players should also be normally distributed. How would a combined rating list of these two sublists look? What would be the new rating distribution? Do we still find male players ahead of female players? Suppose this was repeated for many random samples of male players. Can you come up with any sort of statistical basis to confirm the fact that it's just a numbers game, with discrepancies explained by the normal distribution? My hypothesis is that you will, but I haven't the time or the inclination to do the work! :oops:
I know somebody who tried to do such an analysis, they did however use a different mind sport. Any sampling of existing populations is certain to be biased though, I think you would need to start with an untainted sample and see how it develops. 1 group of females, 1 group of males. Then assess their ability after a period of learning... well that will never happen.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:14 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Alan Kennedy wrote:There was some interesting research on the subject at http://tinyurl.com/2dao85p
by Merim Bilalic et al. The conclusion was that the reason for the difference was not necessarily due to the initate difference in ability but because there were fewer women playing chess and therefore less players at the extreme end of the distribution curve. What did Mr Harston make of that?
An interesting statistical test would be to take a random sample of male players from the rating list, so that you have equal male and female players. Logically, the random sample of male players should also be normally distributed. How would a combined rating list of these two sublists look? What would be the new rating distribution? Do we still find male players ahead of female players? Suppose this was repeated for many random samples of male players. Can you come up with any sort of statistical basis to confirm the fact that it's just a numbers game, with discrepancies explained by the normal distribution? My hypothesis is that you will, but I haven't the time or the inclination to do the work! :oops:
Wouldn't work I'm afraid as the samples are already self selecting based on the fact they are on the grading list at all. If (and it's a big if) Hartson's theory holds any water at all, it would be a reasonable assumption that lot's of female players would give up the game and only the better players would remain in the grading list.

They key question is why is it that, at primary school level the numbers of girls and boys playing seems to be about equal but then is skewed heavily in teenage years. This problem is nopt unique to chess - football also sees larger numbers of female players giving up when compared to their male counterparts.

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by IanDavis » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:29 am

Sean Hewitt wrote: Wouldn't work I'm afraid as the samples are already self selecting based on the fact they are on the grading list at all. If (and it's a big if) Hartson's theory holds any water at all, it would be a reasonable assumption that lot's of female players would give up the game and only the better players would remain in the grading list.

They key question is, why is it that at primary school level the numbers of girls and boys playing seems to be about equal but then is skewed heavily in teenage years. This problem is not unique to chess - football also sees larger numbers of female players giving up when compared to their male counterparts.
If numbers are equal at primary school, but diverge afterwards, then this does seem to be in agreement with Hartston's compulsive-obsessive (is that the correct term?) theory. It's not just weak players that you would expect to give up, I observed all levels dropping out in my youth.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:32 am

"If you mean England that was Andrew Greet."

British? Of course, that is me getting my nations all mixed up.
Andrew (the current Sottish Champion and Chess columnist and trainer
of the English Olympiad team fits the bill perfectly) your a
member of the FIDE Commission for Women's Chess.
Another perfect choice.

"but the producer wanted someone articulate (and female)as opposed
to a strong player (surely you can be both)"

But not in the BBC's eyes, they have us tagged as spotting
trains, wearing anoraks and dribbling soft drinks.

Right I'd like to say more but the 11.55 from Aberdeen is arriving soon
at Waverly Station.

It's being pulled by the last of the original 47/4 conversions,
(numbered 47650 to 47665), they were fitted with extra fuel tanks
giving them the extended range.

I'm all excited.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Chess on Woman's Hour Radio 4 23/12/10

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:29 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Unlike the heyday of Hartston and the Eagles, if you took the top 120 active ENG players you would find three female players. Is it relevant that they all have brothers of at least CM standard?
I have noticed around here that the prominent female players all had one or more brothers who played too, often - but not always - to a higher standard.
Sean Hewitt wrote:Wouldn't work I'm afraid as the samples are already self selecting based on the fact they are on the grading list at all. If (and it's a big if) Hartson's theory holds any water at all, it would be a reasonable assumption that lot's of female players would give up the game and only the better players would remain in the grading list.
If we take "someone who plays chess" to be equivalent to "someone on the grading/rating list", why would it be self-selecting?

I do think there are lots of female players who give up the game thinking they're not very good, but equally there are lots of boys who give up for the same reason.
Sean Hewitt wrote:They key question is why is it that, at primary school level the numbers of girls and boys playing seems to be about equal but then is skewed heavily in teenage years. This problem is nopt unique to chess - football also sees larger numbers of female players giving up when compared to their male counterparts.
I haven't noticed this as true around here. The strongest chess primary schools around here tend to have floods of boys playing outside of the school environment, but not so many girls. I couldn't comment on the actual number in the classes themselves.

Thereafter the waters get muddied, because the leading schools tend to be boys or girls only - apart from the one I went to which is mixed. My old school has far more female chessplayers in it than the other KE Foundation schools around here; even the girls only ones.