The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[tso]

Plus the fairly obvious fact that by your logic, breasts are imposed on women by our overwhelmingly sexist society. How can they be congenital when they take fourteen years to kick in?!

Oops, you got me there.

For example, the idea that men are better at chess was exploded by the Polgar family. ... the father taught 1000 girls who were given similar support, there might not be a single man left in the top 10. ...

I just love how you take a single instance to support your point just after pointing the same thing out as a flaw in an argument.

I'm not clear you mean. Possibly my point was also unclear: Mr. Polgar's teaching method is superior. If he taught 500 boys and 500 girls, all other things being equal, his students might fill most of the 10 ten spots in the world -- only a coin flip would tell you if the top spot would be male or female.

7) At most levels of school, girls outperform boys. Apparantly, lower IQ is an asset to higher learning.

You said yourself the differences don't kick in for 14 years! Of course the differences won't exist at those levels of schooling. Men tend to pull ahead at later levels, just as the people who made the study would presumably predict.

Women -- at least in the US -- have been outperforming men in college in both the undergraduate and post-graduate levels for some time now. There's been a lot of press about it -- mostly focused on the "fact" that we're somehow failing our boys, that somehow, boys aren't getting what they need, they're being left behind -- the underlying assuption being, not only would boys do better than girls if they had equal footing, but that they *should* do better.

[PaulIQ164]

I'm not clear you mean. Possibly my point was also unclear: Mr. Polgar's teaching method is superior. If he taught 500 boys and 500 girls, all other things being equal, his students might fill most of the 10 ten spots in the world -- only a coin flip would tell you if the top spot would be male or female.

Yes, I think I misread your post. Sorry.

Women -- at least in the US -- have been outperforming men in college in both the undergraduate and post-graduate levels for some time now. There's been a lot of press about it -- mostly focused on the "fact" that we're somehow failing our boys, that somehow, boys aren't getting what they need, they're being left behind -- the underlying assuption being, not only would boys do better than girls if they had equal footing, but that they *should* do better.

Hey, hang on. Why do you say that the underlying assumption is that boys would do better with an equal footing, rather than that they would do just as well?

[udosuk]

For example, the idea that men are better at chess was exploded by the Polgar family. ... the father taught 1000 girls who were given similar support, there might not be a single man left in the top 10. ...

I just love how you take a single instance to support your point just after pointing the same thing out as a flaw in an argument.

I'm not clear you mean. Possibly my point was also unclear: Mr. Polgar's teaching method is superior. If he taught 500 boys and 500 girls, all other things being equal, his students might fill most of the 10 ten spots in the world -- only a coin flip would tell you if the top spot would be male or female.

Although not a prolific chess player myself, I couldn't imagine any chess player will agree that brilliance in the game could be "taught", even by someone as "superior" as Mr. Polgar... If chess champions could be manufactured like factory process lines then what's the point of playing?
Is Roger Federer so good because he got the great Australian Tony Roche to coach him for 2 weeks during every slam? If that's the case then the top 10 in men's tennis must all be Aussies... (Okay, inappropriate analogy.) But in a game/sport like chess where adults frequently get beaten by children you'd think raw talent/natural gifts would be much more important than the "teaching". Perhaps the Polgar girls are so great because of their bloods, not their father's teaching.

7) At most levels of school, girls outperform boys. Apparantly, lower IQ is an asset to higher learning.

You said yourself the differences don't kick in for 14 years! Of course the differences won't exist at those levels of schooling. Men tend to pull ahead at later levels, just as the people who made the study would presumably predict.

Women -- at least in the US -- have been outperforming men in college in both the undergraduate and post-graduate levels for some time now. There's been a lot of press about it -- mostly focused on the "fact" that we're somehow failing our boys, that somehow, boys aren't getting what they need, they're being left behind -- the underlying assuption being, not only would boys do better than girls if they had equal footing, but that they *should* do better.

There're so many reasons why girls outperform boys... The most prominent ones I could think of being the lack of maturity... that the society "requires" the girls to mature much earlier than boys... As for laziness, it all depends on what kind of activities we're focusing on... Men are generally more lazy on household chores but for other activities (labour, sport etc) I seriously doubt it...

IMHO, saying "men have a higher average IQ than women" is not sexist, just like saying "men have a longer average height than women". But saying "men are generally smarter than women" is surely sexist, and most likely not true. I have long pick up the idea that a high IQ doesn't mean much more than finding out about 3816547290 or figuring out the next entry in the series 1,10,20,110,220,1110,2220,10110,20220.

[Karyobin]

...a high IQ doesn't mean much more than finding out about 3816547290...

WOW! How did you know my bank account no.?

[afjt]

WOW! How did you know my bank account no.?

The way Sudoku has taken off, are you sure it isn't Wayne's bank balance ?

[Pat]

PaulIQ164 is quite certain about manual intervention in selecting puzzles for the championship, i just wonder if Pappocom has commented on this matter?
- Pat

There is an objective difference between a Fiendish and an Ultra-Fiendish.

While they both require you to draw from the same pool of tactics to solve them, Ultra-Fiendishes require these tactics to be used more, and in more complicated combinations than regular Fiendishes.

Do you seriously think the organisers simply pressed for two new Hard puzzles on the computer program and used those? I am sure that they didn't.

[PaulIQ164]

I think either Wayne has a special version of the software that he can use to create fiendishes more fiendish than usual, or else especially hard puzzles were selected manually. Obviously I can't prove it, but it seems likely to me.

[chrisr]

Wow, this topic is a big can of worms...

Anyway, speaking as someone who does the newspaper sudokus almost exclusively, I fully understand that The Times Fiendishes don't need anything more difficult than a pair to complete. Newspaper puzzles are supposed to be diverting and fun for the general population, not an entrance exam for Mensa. My mother is still grappling with a typical Fiendish, having finally got to grips with the Difficult ones. If The Times Fiendishes suddenly became Very Hard then she would give up.

However, having said all that, I have discovered X-Wings in newspaper sudokus. Firstly, the "Challenging puzzle for the weekend" sudokus on the back of the Friday Evening Standards waaay back in May/June used them: I was new to sudoku then, and had to resort to trial and error to solve them. All the Evening Standard's puzzles are much easier these days, too: maybe too many people complained? Finally, there is a free newspaper called "The Metro" which I pick up on the London trains every weekday. And while Monday - Thursday puzzles are little more than handwriting excercises, the Friday ones for the last 3 weeks have proved much more interesting.

[Pat]

PaulIQ164, your suggestions are entirely reasonable! and i do apologize if the poor phrasing of my earlier Post appears to express any doubts on this matter.
- Pat

I think either Wayne has a special version of the software that he can use to create fiendishes more fiendish than usual, or else especially hard puzzles were selected manually.

Obviously I can't prove it, but it seems likely to me.

[Bigtone53]

All the Evening Standard's puzzles are much easier these days, too: maybe too many people complained?

Perhaps too far OT, especially as this just covers London, but I feel that the Evening Standard's Difficult ones are a good run for their money at the end of the day. Nothing fancy, but not straightforward

[Pat]

there is a free newspaper called The Metro which I pick up on the London trains every weekday;
their Friday puzzles for the last 3 weeks have proved interesting.

i am interested in a comparison of puzzles from various sources, i think many of our members are likewise interested;
so, how about Posting [ ] an example - any one puzzle which you deem Worthy?

thanks!
Pat

[lunababy_moonchild]

there is a free newspaper called The Metro which I pick up on the London trains every weekday;
their Friday puzzles for the last 3 weeks have proved interesting.

i am interested in a comparison of puzzles from various sources, i think many of our members are likewise interested;
so, how about Posting [ ] an example - any one puzzle which you deem Worthy?

thanks!
Pat

Now that's ( [ ] ) clever:D

Luna

[Guest]

just one

This is acctually a good idea, but I cant go along with it.. I'll PM you with my idea. ;)

[Pat]

How many puzzles did you have to do?

just one

i thought that it was strange that they drag 300 people to Cheltenham to do one puzzle.

I would suggest that in a future championship each competitor does at least two puzzles

excellent recommendation, Pi!

[jonallen1966]

The London Evening standard have just started a competion
I've started a thread here :
http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?p=14952#p14952