c4countdown

I had a very boring train journey over the weekend and my thoughts drifted to Countdown.

I was thinking about the best players over the last few series and although it is a common observation that normally at least 6 out the 8 quarterfinalists in a series are male what struck me was that the few top female players are generally middle aged compared to the fresher faced males such as Travers, Kai, Charlie, Kirk, Briars, Richard Brittain etc.

Does anyone have any suggestions for why there are so few great female players under 30? Thinking about it has there ever been a really young female contestant?

Several over the years, but on the whole its very scarce.

Lucy Guile was prob one of the last, i think she was about 14 at the time, maybe 6 yrs ago?

I imagine its because most young girls have different interests and aren't as geeky as the chaps.

There was some research done on the gender bias in maths and computer science, which is a surprisingly related field (look at how many of the CoC contestants had some professional connection to one or other.) The conclusion was that men and women are just as able, but girls are just not interested during at the vital teenage years when boys are accumulating a lot of experience.

I wouldn't say young girls aren't geeky, but I think they would be more embarrased about a hobby such as Countdown; whereas the competitive aspect probably appeals to guys.

And girls are still indoctrinated, from an early age, not to put themselves forward. I would guess that modern girls put up more of a fight than in my day, but there is still a lot of unwillingness to stand out.

But you lads are all fathers, sons, brothers and/or paramours: why aren't you encouraging them ?

Rosemary Roberts wrote: But you lads are all fathers, sons, brothers and/or paramours: why aren't you encouraging them ?

I certainly am and encourage more girls to come to CO-events

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote: But you lads are all fathers, sons, brothers and/or paramours: why aren't you encouraging them ?

I certainly am and encourage more girls to come to CO-events

Work harder at this.

I remember Beth Sutton too from a few years ago, who won 3 games at the age of 15.

When I filmed my heat shows just over a year ago Chris Smith (who played in the next game after I lost) spoke of a 10-year-old girl at her audition who she thought was very good, but she hasn't appeared on the show thus far.

I don't think there's any reason why young girls couldn't do well, especially if they practised hard on apterous, but as others have mentioned maybe social factors get in the way.

I remember a 15 year old winning a few years back, and the presenter (can't remember who) saying she was the youngest ever female winner. I don't think that's changed.

So, in 27 years, there's never been a girl champion under 15, while boys under 15 have had several Octochamps? It almost certainly means the best boy players are better at Countdown than the best girl players. Nothing to do with environment or upbringing, it's just the way their minds work.

David Roe wrote:I remember a 15 year old winning a few years back, and the presenter (can't remember who) saying she was the youngest ever female winner. I don't think that's changed.

So, in 27 years, there's never been a girl champion under 15, while boys under 15 have had several Octochamps? It almost certainly means the best boy players are better at Countdown than the best girl players. Nothing to do with environment or upbringing, it's just the way their minds work.

I think you are almost certainly entirely wrong. But I don't go for snap judgements, me.

Mine's not a snap judgement, I've had 27 years thinking about it. (Which of course doesn't mean it can't be wrong.)

David Roe wrote:Mine's not a snap judgement, I've had 27 years thinking about it. (Which of course doesn't mean it can't be wrong.)

I'm sure that that, on the other hand, is absolutely right !

There is a parallel with chess in the whole nature/nurture argument in that men have tended to be far stronger players than women traditionally and this was thought to be a matter of a natural advantage.

However, the Polgar sisters were trained from a very early age to become top class chess players. All three of them became good players; Judit became the highest rated female of all time and was one of the top ten rated players at her peak.

This shows that with the right environment women can compete with men at the top level. The reason for the absence of top women players may have as much to do with gender bias (in the minds of trainers, parents, i.e. anybody in a position to offer support to a blossoming player); inequality of opportunity etc and all the usual things that keep women chained to kitchen sinks ... but then that's why they have small feet.

David O'Donnell wrote: This shows that with the right environment women can compete with men at the top level. The reason for the absence of top women players may have as much to do with gender bias

Indeed, but it may not. No one thinks it sexist to say that men run faster than women. Maybe the male brain is also more adept at games for some evolutionary reason. This wouldn't be particularly surprising since most games were also invented by men for other men. However good the Polgar sisters are, we just don't know how many young girls are given similar training and turn out to be rubbish. In the absence of real data, it's just as wrong to assume that two groups of people are equally good as to assume that one is better than the other. Unfortunately stating this rather obvious fact is usually seen as some kind of latent sexism/racism/jism, as if being good at chess or running really fast is the deciding factor in a person's individual worth.

David O'Donnell wrote:... with the right environment women can compete with men at the top level. The reason for the absence of top women players may have as much to do with gender bias (in the minds of trainers, parents, i.e. anybody in a position to offer support to a blossoming player); inequality of opportunity etc and all the usual things that keep women chained to kitchen sinks ... but then that's why they have small feet.

See also the Mendelssohn story on Radio 3 - Fanny's talent appears to have been on a par with thar of her brother, but it was quite inappropriate at that time for a woman to have a life of her own.

Charlie Reams wrote:we just don't know how many young girls are given similar training and turn out to be rubbish.

... or boys ...

Not only does talent not correlate to sex, it doesn't correlate to "putting oneself forward" either. Look at all the people who turn up hoping to be a Superstar and turn out to be either supremely untalented or totally crippled by stagefright. How many people turn up for Countdown auditions and prove to be completely tonguetied or unable to spell ?

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Not only does talent not correlate to sex

How do you know that?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Not only does talent not correlate to sex

How do you know that?

Well - to take a small sample - look at you, look at me.

From where I sit it is entirely obvious that you are just as talented as I was at your age. Maybe a bit more, but not a lot, and I could also knit, write comic verse and bake parkin. BTW, where I sit is the best part of 50 years in your future - this is what we call taking the longer view.

Seriously though, since "talent" is not objectively measureable it would take years even to design an experiment. And for something that really does look obvious that is just too much research funding.

Rosemary Roberts wrote: Well - to take a small sample - look at you, look at me.

From where I sit it is entirely obvious that you are just as talented as I was at your age. Maybe a bit more, but not a lot, and I could also knit, write comic verse and bake parkin. BTW, where I sit is the best part of 50 years in your future - this is what we call taking the longer view.

Seriously though, since "talent" is not objectively measureable it would take years even to design an experiment. And for something that really does look obvious that is just too much research funding.

So to summarise your argument, "I'm old, now shut up."

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Seriously though, since "talent" is not objectively measureable it would take years even to design an experiment. And for something that really does look obvious that is just too much research funding.

Since talent is not objectively measurable, surely that just means a statement like "not only does talent not correlate to sex" an entirely pointless one to make. It's like saying "all bread is really nice".

Also, it would not be very hard to research something like that. The most obvious thing that springs to mind is to just do a meta-analysis of the hundreds, if not thousands, of papers already looking at boys vs girls. I could probably do something like that in my spare time - not everything needs an 'experiment', you know.

Charlie Reams wrote:So to summarise your argument, "I'm old, now shut up."

I think there was a little more in my argument than that. And it was you that said

Charlie Reams wrote:In the absence of real data, it's just as wrong to assume that two groups of people are equally good as to assume that one is better than the other.

The last thing I want is for any of you to shut up - there is nothing so much fun as watching intelligent children getting into futile arguments. And occasionally putting a boot or oar in.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:So to summarise your argument, "I'm old, now shut up."

I think there was a little more in my argument than that. And it was you that said

Charlie Reams wrote:In the absence of real data, it's just as wrong to assume that two groups of people are equally good as to assume that one is better than the other.

The last thing I want is for any of you to shut up - there is nothing so much fun as watching intelligent children getting into futile arguments. And occasionally putting a boot or oar in.

Patronising and wrong, good work. Have you tried the Daily Mail? You might like it.

Michael Wallace wrote:Also, it would not be very hard to research something like that. The most obvious thing that springs to mind is to just do a meta-analysis of the hundreds, if not thousands, of papers already looking at boys vs girls. I could probably do something like that in my spare time - not everything needs an 'experiment', you know.

If there is one thing the world doesn't need it is yet another meta-analysis of other people's research papers. It is painful to see how much of the available research money is spent on such pointless exercises. It has been my lot to translate a few of them. Bear in mind that nobody ever reads these papers, they only skim them. Even the author never actually reads everything he or she cites. But the translator has to. The same undigested guff is recycled over and over again, the only new material is the couple of chapters at the beginning pointing out (quite correctly) that because all the previous research used different metrics and different group-matching algorithms and were done in different countries and different decades ...
... it is really not possible to draw any hard and fast conclusions.

And then the is the section at the end that begins "Nevertheless, we have the distinct impression that..." and ends "..and we feel sure that future research will bear us out."

Rosemary Roberts wrote:If there is one thing the world doesn't need it is yet another meta-analysis of other people's research papers. It is painful to see how much of the available research money is spent on such pointless exercises. It has been my lot to translate a few of them. Bear in mind that nobody ever reads these papers, they only skim them. Even the author never actually reads everything he or she cites. But the translator has to. The same undigested guff is recycled over and over again, the only new material is the couple of chapters at the beginning pointing out (quite correctly) that because all the previous research used different metrics and different group-matching algorithms and were done in different countries and different decades ...
... it is really not possible to draw any hard and fast conclusions.

And then the is the section at the end that begins "Nevertheless, we have the distinct impression that..." and ends "..and we feel sure that future research will bear us out."

Tell me, do you have a background in statistics? Because it sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about.

Charlie Reams wrote:Patronising and wrong, good work. Have you tried the Daily Mail? You might like it.

Patronising, certainly, that was intentional because I know how annoying it is. But how am I wrong. Most of the arguments carried out online - even here - are entirely pointless.

And yes, I have tried the Daily Mail. I didn't like it.

Charlie Reams wrote: Indeed, but it may not.

It, at the very least, provides a counter-example to the hypothesis that men are inherently superior at chess to women. Interestingly, Judit is on record as saying that she believes men are superior (around the time of the Short-Kasparov match - was quite funny because Carol was giving her the question as a feed-line for an expected feminist rant that never materialised.

Charlie Reams wrote:No one thinks it sexist to say that men run faster than women. Maybe the male brain is also more adept at games for some evolutionary reason. This wouldn't be particularly surprising since most games were also invented by men for other men ...

Ahem, not a great counter to my argument that gender bias may effect performance more than we realise

Charlie Reams wrote:However good the Polgar sisters are, we just don't know how many young girls are given similar training and turn out to be rubbish. In the absence of real data, it's just as wrong to assume that two groups of people are equally good as to assume that one is better than the other.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments before.

Charlie Reams wrote:Unfortunately stating this rather obvious fact

All "facts" are socially informed norms and that's a fact!

Charlie Reams wrote: is usually seen as some kind of latent sexism/racism/jism

You sexist pig!

Charlie Reams wrote: as if being good at chess or running really fast is the deciding factor in a person's individual worth.

It's being good at Countdown?

Rosemary Roberts wrote:If there is one thing the world doesn't need it is yet another meta-analysis of other people's research papers. It is painful to see how much of the available research money is spent on such pointless exercises.

Umm, medical meta-analyses have saved thousands of lives. Also, Michael never said he was going to publish anything.

David O'Donnell wrote:It, at the very least, provides a counter-example to the hypothesis that men are inherently superior at chess to women.

It really doesn't, it provides a counter-example to the claim that all men are better than all women, which is obviously not what anyone thinks. My point, which I don't think you disagree with, is that men might be better than women on average, given the same amount of training. And there might be other things (including, possibly, games designed by women) where women would do better. I have no idea if that's true either way, but it's indefensible to assume there's no possibility that men are better than women at a given task.

David O'Donnell wrote:All "facts" are socially informed norms and that's a fact!

I know you're just being comic but there's nothing socially informed about saying "don't assume stuff without evidence."

Michael Wallace wrote:Tell me, do you have a background in statistics? Because it sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about.

Charlie Reams wrote:Umm, medical meta-analyses have saved thousands of lives.

I wasn't intending to imply anything about medical research or meta-analyses of same, which is much better designed and often highly valuable.
What I'm talking about - namely that meta-analyses on social questions do not usually shed any light because the provisos outweigh the new data - ir the fruit of some forty years experience of translating the things. You cannot translate what you do not understand. I have only a maths degree, I did not specialise in statistics, but I find that I know at least as much about statistics as the people I translate.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:I wasn't intending to imply anything about medical research or meta-analyses of same, which is much better designed and often highly valuable.
What I'm talking about - namely that meta-analyses on social questions do not usually shed any light because the provisos outweigh the new data - ir the fruit of some forty years experience of translating the things. You cannot translate what you do not understand. I have only a maths degree, I did not specialise in statistics, but I find that I know at least as much about statistics as the people I translate.

So in fact what you mean is the world doesn't need more bad meta-analyses, conducted by people who don't understand statistics (that is to say, like most scientists I've encountered). I find it surprising that someone with a maths degree would not construct their statements (like "If there is one thing the world doesn't need it is yet another meta-analysis of other people's research papers.") more carefully.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:the couple of chapters at the beginning pointing out (quite correctly) that because all the previous research used different metrics and different group-matching algorithms and were done in different countries and different decades ...
... it is really not possible to draw any hard and fast conclusions.

For future reference - it is never possible to draw hard and fast conclusions in statistics (you can certainly never say "x causes y"), but it is possible to do plenty of things to take those various problems you list into account in your analysis - they are not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle from the point of view of coming to useful conclusions.

Michael Wallace wrote:So in fact what you mean is the world doesn't need more bad meta-analyses, conducted by people who don't understand statistics (that is to say, like most scientists I've encountered). I find it surprising that someone with a maths degree would not construct their statements (like "If there is one thing the world doesn't need it is yet another meta-analysis of other people's research papers.") more carefully.

I don't venture into medical work, so I have never encountered any other kind of meta-analysis that the repetitive crap I was quoting. And I wouldn't like to let cold mathematical logic get in the way of a nice piece of rhetoric.

Michael Wallace wrote:For future reference - it is never possible to draw hard and fast conclusions in statistics (you can certainly never say "x causes y"), but it is possible to do plenty of things to take those various problems you list into account in your analysis - they are not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle from the point of view of coming to useful conclusions.

I'm aware of the causality principle and of significant and insignificant results. I was quoting pretty accurately the kind of stuff I see and predicting (quite wrongly, as I now understand) that such an analysis performed by you would be no better. I apologise for forgetting that you are the stats god around here. But I think you might concede that there are many so-called research scientists, at least in the so-called social sciences, who would make a pig's breakfast of the task.

The whole nature/nurture argument is a massive bear-trap since one cannot be detached without the other: once you exist you are already being nurtured.

We can, therefore, never know the extent to which gender biases play a role in determining performance. We shouldn't negate this possibility either and should actively encourage the participation of those who are excluded in unseen ways like codified rituals that imbue us with a sense of our strengths because we are men or because we are women.

Your view, Charlie, is empirical and as such would ignore these unseen influences. Facts or ideas backed up by evidence are important but they shouldn't become a crutch. Look at science, is it organised as a series of neatly ordered facts or is it paradigmatic and prone to (sometimes literally) violent shifts? (Ptolemy - Copernicus - Newton - Einstein - Quantum Mechanics). Science is one narrative among others but it is more dangerous since it presupposes that it can legitimate itself on a meta-level.

Thusly, I wouldn't restrict myself to an empirical argument (but I would certainly take heed of it) since with nature/nurture questions we are dealing with something that cannot be empirically verifiable.

If you bring up twins who separated at birth and both ended up

Rosemary Roberts wrote:But I think you might concede that there are many so-called research scientists, at least in the so-called social sciences, who would make a pig's breakfast of the task.

That's definitely something we can agree on

David O'Donnell wrote:The whole nature/nurture argument is a massive bear-trap since one cannot be detached without the other: once you exist you are already being nurtured.

We can, therefore, never know the extent to which gender biases play a role in determining performance. We shouldn't negate this possibility either and should actively encourage the participation of those who are excluded in unseen ways like codified rituals that imbue us with a sense of our strengths because we are men or because we are women.

Your view, Charlie, is empirical and as such would ignore these unseen influences. Facts or ideas backed up by evidence are important but they shouldn't become a crutch. Look at science, is it organised as a series of neatly ordered facts or is it paradigmatic and prone to (sometimes literally) violent shifts? (Ptolemy - Copernicus - Newton - Einstein - Quantum Mechanics). Science is one narrative among others but it is more dangerous since it presupposes that it can legitimate itself on a meta-level.

Thusly, I wouldn't restrict myself to an empirical argument (but I would certainly take heed of it) since with nature/nurture questions we are dealing with something that cannot be empirically verifiable.

If you bring up twins who separated at birth and both ended up

Sure. As far as I'm concerned, girls should be given exactly the same opportunities to get good at chess as boys, so the question of whether they'll actually become as good on average is pretty pointless.

Another way of looking at this issue is to look at the performance of women in Countdown over the years, since it has become clear that it has become significantly more male-dominated in the last 8-10 years. In that time there have been only 3 female losing finalists, several of the finals and the CoC before last have been all male affairs and Grace Page is the only female to have broken 800 points in the heats. Over the years there have been certainly been 3 changes, each of which have, in their own ways, reduced the luck element.

1. Extension of series from 3 to 6 months, since you have to win more games to get to the finals and there is less chance of winning a series on the back of a few streaky wins in the heats and a weakish finals line-up.

2. Move from 9 to 15 rounds (pretty self-explanatory).

3. Use of more comprehensive dictionary, reducing the chance of a genuine word simply not having been chosen for inclusion, and therefore being rejected.

The increase in male dominance when the element of luck is reduced would suggest that males either have an innate advantage due to the way their brain is hard-wired, or a greater desire to succeed, which may be either hard-wired or due to social factors, or, most likely, a mixture of both.

Also, the growth of the internet gives far more chance for potential contestants to swap tips and test themsleves against top players and those with the greatest dedication are more likely to avail themselves of these opportunities.

In conclusion, I'm sure that nurture plays a part, but I cannot believe that the extent of recent male domination can purely be explained by this.

The Polgar experiment was interesting. I suspect many girls/women don't play chess because of the appalling attitude of a lot of organisers and other players. I have heard organisers saying that we must encourage more female participation, and then they say they are organising female-only events, what a friend of mine calls "Women's Ghetto Chess". (She has delivered many lectures to me on the subject.) Yes, we want you to play, but only in a little section, where you won't get in the way of the male players, or you can play in the same section and we will award you "women's prizes" in the pretence that we are being nice, but really we are emphasizing your inferiority. (When a girl won a British Junior Chess Championship, they were considering awarding her the girlie prize and giving the actual championship trophy to the highest boy...) Sadly, some players do think all women are worse than all men; years ago I had a very difficult drawn game against a strong female player (Sheila Jackson) and one of my club colleagues said, "Couldn't you even beat that girl?" I pointed out that on ratings, she should score 80% against me and he looked amazed. There are few female players, maybe 1 or 2 % so some get fed up with the male domination and stop playing - bridge by contrast has a much better balance of male/female players, with the latter predominating. Maybe they just don't want to compete? Fischer said he wanted to feel his opponent's ego crack, and I know what he meant. Perhaps women are less likely to feel like that?

A significant number of male chessplayers (and Countdown contestants) are geeky, autistic, obsessive, abusive if someone disagrees with them, or just plain weird. (If you require evidence for this hypothesis, look at any internet forum devoted to chess or countdown.) Maybe that puts women off?

There is no reason why there shouldn't be female champions, but they have to have the desire and the time to do the background work, and also have the competitive instinct. There may still be social factors of course.

The female Countdown contestants I have met were mainly doing it for amusement (so were most of the men for that matter), but the really successful players (as in chess) are the ones who do all the background work with word lists etc., and worry about which collections of 8 letters are always a 9 with another vowel...

Kevin

Interesting post, Kevin. I didn't even think of the bridge example even though I play every week in a club where the strongest players are female!

David O'Donnell wrote:Interesting post, Kevin. I didn't even think of the bridge example even though I play every week in a club where the strongest players are female!

We need a partnership version of Countdown?

Clive Brooker wrote:We need a partnership version of Countdown?

That could be fun - the "stronger" player being the one who can persuade his* partner to play his* dubious 8 instead of her* well-founded 9. But I'm not sure it would be Countdown as we know it.


* or vice versa, of course.

Going slightly off topic, stand-up comedy is another area that is fairly male dominated. It does seem that more men go in for it but women often have a different style of comedy (obviously generalising quite a lot) that is regarded by a lot of people as not as funny.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Going slightly off topic, stand-up comedy is another area that is fairly male dominated. It does seem that more men go in for it but women often have a different style of comedy (obviously generalising quite a lot) that is regarded by a lot of people as not as funny.

Im 17. I play on apterous and if i get good enough i'll audition for CD and become the greatest girl contestant since my countdown heroine anita freeland

Sandra Weldrick wrote:Im 17. I play on apterous and if i get good enough i'll audition for CD and become the greatest girl contestant since my countdown heroine anita freeland

Are you fit though?

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Sandra Weldrick wrote:Im 17. I play on apterous and if i get good enough i'll audition for CD and become the greatest girl contestant since my countdown heroine anita freeland

Are you fit though?

Dinos you disgust me. It's the poor girl's first post. Leave her alone. Come on Sandra, come away from him. That's it. Sit down over here next to me...

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Sandra Weldrick wrote:Im 17. I play on apterous and if i get good enough i'll audition for CD and become the greatest girl contestant since my countdown heroine anita freeland

Are you fit though?

I know you're being ironic, but any newbie reading that would just think you were a twat.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Sandra Weldrick wrote:Im 17. I play on apterous and if i get good enough i'll audition for CD and become the greatest girl contestant since my countdown heroine anita freeland

Are you fit though?

I know you're being ironic, but any newbie reading that would just think you were a twat.

i do