Games, gender, and the urge to win

In a recent blog post, I noted that only 1% of chess grandmasters are women.

Part of the reason for this is that women lack the urge to win, as explained in a John Tierney column from 2005.

Tierney explains that women outnumber men at Scrabble clubs and tournaments, but at the very top of the game, men dominate. “Among the top-ranked 50 players, typically about 45 are men.” Women aren’t interested in doing what it takes to get to the top. What it takes is spending hours a day memorizing letter combinations and doing Scrabble drills on the computer.

Tierney has a quote from Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University:

Evolution has selected for men with a taste for risking everything to get to the top of the hierarchy, because those males get more reproductive opportunities, not only among primates but also among human beings. Women don't get as big a reproductive payoff by reaching the top. They're just as competitive with themselves - they want to do a good job just as much as men do - but men want to be more competitive with others.

A quote from a NY Times article about girls and chess lends support to the observation that males have an innate desire to win that females lack:

Players, parents and chess promoters say they see differences in play that are surprisingly stereotypical: boys are always on the attack and care above all about winning, while girls focus more on defense and admire the art of certain positions.

Even at a young age, boys play games to win to a noticeably greater extent than girls.

This explains why men outnumber women at World of Warcraft. When men see a status hierarchy, they have a biological urge to get to the top of it, even if it’s a stupid status hierarchy.

This doesn’t explain why women like Scrabble and men like chess. It probably has something to do with the fact that women are more verbal than men, and Scrabble involves making words. Chess is non-verbal and taps into men’s better spatial abilities.

The NY Times article about chess says that girls complained that they don’t have any female friends to play chess with because “their female friends were too busy with ballet or soccer to learn a game they saw as boring.” The key word is that girls find chess boring.

Men and women’s different attitudes towards games is a mirror of what’s going on in the non-gaming world. Larry Summers lost his job at Harvard for saying something about men and women and science. But clearly the reason why so few women go into science in the first place is because it’s non-verbal and therefore “boring” to most women. And even women who enter science don’t make it to the very top because they lack the urge to win.

Gay men also have the urge to win. According to a NY Times article about fashion designers, 85% and 93% of the students at two leading fashion schools are women, but the top levels of fashion design are dominated by gay men. Even when competing against gay men, women don’t have what it takes to get to the top. (Although the NY Times article is full of complaints by women that gay men are keeping the straight women down.)

Comments

[meep]

Sounds about right to me. I enjoyed doing math competitions, but I didn't care to do the kind of prep the guys did to get on top. I did usually score high, but if I worked hard at it, I could have done better. Top 10 in the state as opposed to top 25. I just didn't care. There were guys on the math team who didn't much care, either.

It was fun to go to ARML and that kind of thing, I loved doing the math relays, but I wasn't going to exert much effort to practice old competition problems. A few other girls also participated, but a lot of the girls in the top math classes weren't interested in it. Once I got to college, I lost even more interest in math competitions. I did the Putnam only because the math dept bribed us with free pizza.

[Sumner Lawrence]

There are at least two status hierarchies that women are more motivated to climb than men are: beauty and moral superiority.

[Vim]

Great topic. I think we need a bit of a reality check here. Girls find chess boring? No! Everybody finds chess boring!

Meep says "I enjoyed doing math competitions, but I didn't care to do the kind of prep the guys did to get on top." The element missing here is hundreds of thousands of men didn't care about making it to the top and couldn't have made it even if they had cared.

This is all about picking the wrong trait to focus on. The trait of being male is only explaining a vanishly small bit of the variation here.

I believe there are different reward structures for men and women and the reward structure alone would cause variation in participation in different activities. We must also take into account that most women have a second job of raising children to which they are pressured by society to devote a large amount of resources in terms of time and attention. They are also expected to put more work into their appearance and personal hygiene. If they fail to do these things, they pay a steeper price socially.

People often pressume that if two people are in the same place at the same time that they are in the same environment ie America would treat men and women, blacks, whites, all the same. It is not so. A woman in an all male environment is not in the same environment as a man in an all male environment.

[Peter]

Evolution has selected for men with a taste for risking everything to get to the top of the hierarchy, because those males get more reproductive opportunities

Except that doesn't explain why men strive to be the best at chess or Scrabble or (especially!) World of Warcraft. Being an expert at any of those pursuits doesn't bring a man more reproductive opportunities. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Marc]

Peter,

Sure it does. It's not like men are behaving consciously when they strive for status. They just see a hierarchy (however lame it may be) and feel an instinctual urge to dominate it. This instinct has been selected for because it has worked throughout most of human history.

[Peter]

It's not like men are behaving consciously when they strive for status. They just see a hierarchy (however lame it may be) and feel an instinctual urge to dominate it. This instinct has been selected for because it has worked throughout most of human history.

I don't know ... any man with half a brain who gives the issue a moment's thought will realize that being an expert at chess or WoW is going to be useless at best, but more likely counterproductive, when it comes to finding women. One characteristic of being human beings is that logical thought sometimes wins out over base instinct.

I'm not sure how Scrabble fits into this, as I've always thought of it as something that would appeal mainly to men who are a bit older and usually married.

[K]

You should comment on this Wall Street Journal article about marrying & divorcing for money:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119760031991928727-ia_8awyLoR2JpUspCCkn2GrHsSY_20080112.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

According to a survey by Prince & Associates, a Connecticut-based wealth-research firm, the average "price" that men and women demand to marry for money these days is $1.5 million.

Fully two-thirds of women and half of the men said they were "very" or "extremely" willing to marry for money. The answers varied by age: Women in their 30s were the most likely to say they would marry for money (74%) while men in their 20s were the least likely (41%).

how much a potential spouse would need to have to be money-marriage material, women in their 20s said $2.5 million. The going rate fell to $1.1 million for women in their 30s, and rose again to $2.2 million for women in their 40s.

Among the women in their twenties who said they would marry for money, 71% said they expected to get divorced -- the highest of any demographic. Only 27% of men in their 40s expected to divorce.

Says Mr. Prince: "For these women, it's just another step on their journey to the good life. They want to be paid what they think they're worth and then move on."

(Sorry it's not about chess)

[Half Sigma]

Peter: "One characteristic of being human beings is that logical thought sometimes wins out over base instinct"

The key word in that sentence is "sometimes."

[meep]

I've tried to explain it to the "Math NEEDS Chicks!" crowd -- many women prefer to do something else, forget about the talent distribution. I knew plenty of women in the top math classes who ended up going into medicine or law. They find those more interesting.

Likewise, the profs all thought I should be a prof. I have found out it suits me more to be in the business world. It's a more family-friendly career, that's for sure.

[Brandy]

I believe there are different reward structures for men and women and the reward structure alone would cause variation in participation in different activities.

I agree with what Vim is saying here, this is a classic case of correlation does not equal causation. But the article does raise some interesting points, if even inadvertently.

I think one thing we can all agree on here is that the reward structure in society is imperfect. However, I also believe that the reward structure as it pertains to the selection of male and female traits is slowly shifting. One aspect of the shift is that female members of my generation (gen Y – how ironic) have more opportunity to support themselves and are therefore starting to choose men based on different criteria than those past. They’re also more highly educated. And although plastic surgery is not yet at a point where it can really transform a person’s physical attractiveness, it will continue to move in that direction.

Most of the women that I know (myself included) are at least as successful if not more successful than the men that they date. Not as much emphasis is placed on a man’s ability to be the breadwinner and leader of the household, rather an equal partner and contributor. Also, there is more freedom to choose a male companion based on other factors such as looks, sense of humor, intelligence … etc. Given the choice between a very wealthy man in a position of great power who is mediocre in other aspects vs. an extremely good looking man with a great personality who is mediocre in other aspects – I would go for the looks and personality any day. I know a lot of my girlfriends share the same sentiments – as demonstrated by their choices.

I do believe that within several generations of this trend, as women start to embrace the freedom of choice that intellectual pursuits gives them through socioeconomic success (assuming intellectual pursuits lead to socioeconomic success in the future), you will see more and more women competing through those venues. I would much rather live in a society where I could actually do something to improve my situation, rather than live with the lot I was born with. And in generations past, that was the situation for many women. Looks were your ticket to success, and there was little you could do if you weren’t born with them.

As more men who would otherwise proverbially starve to death are caught by the ‘good looks’ safety net that so many women have been, and their genes will enter the pool in greater numbers.

Ultimately though, technology and scientific advancements will begin to make physical attractiveness an attainable commodity for the wealthy. Perhaps even some day through genetic engineering - innate intelligence as well. Personality and networking ability will probably emerge as the golden ticket. Hopefully not in my lifetime though, as an introverted computer programmer if I had to get by on small talk and flattery I’d have found myself in the bread line long ago…

[Vim]

If a man says he needs a hug to another co-worker male or female, he is less likely to get it than if a woman did the same.

Women are coming from a baseline of more social acceptance than men and therefore have less need to earn approval in the extreme and inefficient ways like chess prowess.

A short dress will get many women much more positive attention than math class ever will.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

"Given the choice between a very wealthy man in a position of great power who is mediocre in other aspects vs. an extremely good looking man with a great personality who is mediocre in other aspects – I would go for the looks and personality any day. I know a lot of my girlfriends share the same sentiments – as demonstrated by their choices."

And this does work, until the woman in question realizes at about 30: "Wow, I don't wanna be stuck going to work all my life! I wanna have kids!"

That's when Pretty Boy doesn't seem so pretty anymore and women start to wish they had married the science nerd, who is now not looking so bad (geekiness that is ugly on a man at 22 can become sexy at 32).

Also what attracts women to men in the first place is often power, and my guess is that if men fail to accrue power by age 30, women stop finding them sexy.

Hence, we have a lot of divorced women in their thirties, wondering where it all went wrong.

[John Smith]

Sure, many people find chess boring, but girls are much more likely than guys to find it boring.

[Brandy]

Hence, we have a lot of divorced women in their thirties, wondering where it all went wrong.

Marrying a rich and powerful guy who traded his forty year old in for two twenty year olds is where they went wrong. At least until the divorce settlement came down.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world. So step up to the plate and marry an unattractive chick who likes chess or MMOGs and have offspring.

[Al Fin]

T-E-S-T-E-R-O-N-E For Dummies! That is the book that most people apparently need to read.

Testosterone drives competitiveness in males, and in those females who were inadvertently dosed with androgens in the womb. Some females have adrenal glands that produce higher than normal testosterone.

Women who are more competitive at chess were beneficiaries of hormonal androgenization at some stage in development.

This is not rocket science, but has been known for over a decade.

[Al Fin]

The incredible effort being made to deny the effect of biology in behaviour seems misplaced to me.

If women really want to produce more world-class physicists, mathematicians, theoretical information scientists, advanced engineers etc. they need to start introducing female fetuses to androgens at specific stages in development.

Of course, it helps if both mother and father are intelligent.
;-)

[Brandy]

...Ok so step up to the plate and marry a girl with a low 2D:4D digit ratio.

Sounds about right to me. I enjoyed doing math competitions, but I didn't care to do the kind of prep the guys did to get on top. I did usually score high, but if I worked hard at it, I could have done better.

Everyone wants to be a champion but no one wants to go to practice.

I think men's greater threshold for pain, as well as a greater appreciation for intangible benefits (ie competition and victory) means that they are more invested and therefor see more results.

[Loki on the run]

I think men's greater threshold for pain, as well as a greater appreciation for intangible benefits (ie competition and victory) means that they are more invested and therefor see more results.

Heh, when you are losing a war, never send a woman to negotiate for you, and especially not a young, fertile woman, since she has lots of options and might just figure "screw those guys, 'cause I can use my uterus to survive so why am I busting ass to save them pricks."

[Days of Broken Arrows]

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world. So step up to the plate and marry an unattractive chick who likes chess or MMOGs and have offspring."

No, Brady, because biologically men are attracted to women's beauty and women are attracted to men's status and power.

Where did you get the idea that men and women were exactly the same? Too many women's studies courses? Once again: Men value beauty and women value resources. This will never change. It's in our genes.

Humans have evolved this way for many years and it's not likely to change soon. And MONEY is the top reason for divorce. Women do better with men with more resources.

I'm sure half-sigma himself can probably blind us with the science behind all this.

[Brandy]

Brady?

[SFg]

since she has lots of options and might just figure "screw those guys

Literaly. ;)

[Brandy]

Heh, when you are losing a war, never send a woman to negotiate for you, and especially not a young, fertile woman, since she has lots of options and might just figure "screw those guys, 'cause I can use my uterus to survive so why am I busting ass to save them pricks."

While you're here why don't you stop by DefendDrew.com and donate a few bucks?

[Brandy]

No, Brady, because biologically men are attracted to women's beauty and women are attracted to men's status and power.

Someone should tell this to Britney Spears. I don't think she got the memo.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Heh, when you are losing a war, never send a woman to negotiate for you, and especially not a young, fertile woman, since she has lots of options and might just figure "screw those guys, 'cause I can use my uterus to survive so why am I busting ass to save them pricks."

This is an excellent point -- women will usually side with the winner, and seem to have a different morality then men. This is why female teachers often side with bullies in schools, giving rise to Columbine rage.

Anyone see Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Who does the lead female wind up with in the end? (I won't spoil the plot.)

[SFG]

This is why female teachers often side with bullies in schools, giving rise to Columbine rage.
That's interesting. I always imagined it was the macho coach types.

[Gil]

I agree. I saw a news program about rather agressive bullying in boys and yet the girls loved the bullies as if to say they found it a sexual turn-on to see an agressive victorious male. It was like something you'd expect in a nature show and does put a damper on the extent of human evolution. Yessirree, I guess it's good ol' evolution and capitalist production. Women ideally would prefer a productive gentle Alpha male but will take an aggressive productive Alpha male over a gentle Omega any day. But then again nerds chase after disinterested cheerleaders like lost puppies when there are probably plenty of single nerdettes who would give them the time of day too.

[SFG]

Oh, everyone knows the teenage girls dig the bad boys! That's why the bad boys act that way. But what surprises me is that the teachers side with the bully. It does help maintain order too.

But then again nerds chase after disinterested cheerleaders like lost puppies when there are probably plenty of single nerdettes who would give them the time of day too.
No, there are very few nerdettes. That's part of the problem.

[meep]

As one of the few nerdettes, I never saw that as a problem. ;)

All my friends are nerds and nerdettes, and the nerdettes never had trouble getting dates, no matter how generally unattractive (physically or otherwise) they were. I decided to diversify my holdings by marrying a geek who could also do manual labor. It's nice to have someone who can be my webmaster, put an axle back on a car, patch the roof, and cook kick-ass burgers. And also someone I can have arguments over quantum reality theories.

Many male geeks can also do these sorts of things, but not if they're spending their time on WoW, chess, and Scrabble.

[Gil]

. . . among other things that could cause Carpal Tunnel Syndrome . . .

[Jack]

meep, no offense, but what kinds of "Dates" were your ugly nerdette friends getting? I mean, I never saw guys going for girls like that, not even nerdy guys. Then again, I really never knew any nerd girls. I do believe there are many more nerd guys. Anyway meep, seems like you found a good guy. You must be at least relatively attractive.

[SFG]

among other things that could cause Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Actually, as far as I know masturbation has not been implicated.

meep, no offense, but what kinds of "Dates" were your ugly nerdette friends getting?
Male nerds, of course. Remember Jacqueline Passey? She didn't even realize being attractive was important for a woman because she had been getting so much action as a female nerd.

A lot of them are okay-looking genetically but just don't put effort into looking good. My old rule of thumb for female nerds was that if I could wear her wardrobe without arousing comment, she was a nerd.

[trumwill]

Oh, everyone knows the teenage girls dig the bad boys! That's why the bad boys act that way. But what surprises me is that the teachers side with the bully. It does help maintain order too.

Arrow is right that the female teachers often side with the bullies, though I disagree with him as to why. A lot of teachers devote their attention to the kids that are most at-risk. I think there is this idea in the minds of a lot of teachers that the bullies need extra attention and affirmation because they must be in a bad way if they're bullies, so they go to an extra effort to be as understanding and non-condemnatory as they can. The guy getting beat up, though, is as often as not an honors student so he's already on the right track.

I don't think that it's a matter of being attracted to strength, though, because this approach wasn't limited to the female teachers. I think it's more the product of social conditioning (Colleges of Ed) than it is biology.

[Brandy]

Did anyone here see the last season of Beauty and the Geek?

As a twist to the usual formula, one of the geeks was a female, and one of the beauties was a male. All the other beauties had a crush on the one beauty male, and none of them were interested romantically in the geeks. Most of the geeks seemed infatuated with the female beauties, but one of them did confess a romantic interest in the female geek, who in turn confessed that the feelings were not reciprocated. And although she did not come out and admit it – I sensed she was actually romantically interested in the male beauty as well.

I think for the most part it's all relative, and also matter of learned lowered expectations. Realizing that you’re not going to get your first choice so settle for second (or third, forth, fifth) best. Sadly, although we’d like to believe otherwise – this is the case for most people.

And up until recently, and even to some degree now, I believe that women are the ones who are doing the most compromising, due to social and financial pressures. In other words, I don’t think it is a biological mechanism that causes women to marry men for money.

There's a Rose
In a fisted Glove
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can't be with the one you love
It's alright
Go ahead and love the one, love the one, love the one your with
Love the one, love the one, love the one your with

[trumwill]

All my friends are nerds and nerdettes, and the nerdettes never had trouble getting dates, no matter how generally unattractive (physically or otherwise) they were.

How are we defining nerd? Are we defining it in terms of intelligence (particularly in math/science) or in terms of social development? With guys there is a huge overlap, but smart females are less likely to be as socially awkward as smart males.

[meep]

I'm sorry, I was really talking about geeks, not nerds (if you know the distinction). These were all people who socialized well within the geek community, if not outside that community. I did not have much dealings with out-and-out nerds, though they did exist at my schools. They were mainly loners.

As for the geek chicks, they got dates roughly equivalent with regards to attractiveness. As you can imagine, the left tail of attractiveness was much longer for the guys than the women.

Of course, none of the geekiest of the women (the only thing that saved me from this title was I wasn't into Star Trek. Or online gaming) were anywhere near the geekiness of the guys. We'd still shop for clothes, read Jane Austen, that sort of thing. Using computers was just a means to an end, and we'd not natter incessantly with regards to different hardware specs. If I programmed, it was to solve a particular problem, not to try out some neat new exploit in a certain OS. Jeez that crap is boring.

(.....spoke the actuary)

[meep]

Also, I agree with trumwill. It is well-nigh impossible for a female to get through adolescence without getting socialized somehow.

All my female school friends are geeks like me, and only a couple have social difficulties, but barely noticeable compared to the male nerds I've seen.

[bbartlog]

men's greater threshold for pain

Cite? I thought the deal was that men had a greater threshold for 'external' pain (being hit, cut, burned or what have you), while women tolerated 'internal' pain better (stomach cramps, broken bones and so on).

[Peter]

Arrow is right that the female teachers often side with the bullies ... I don't think that it's a matter of being attracted to strength, though, because this approach wasn't limited to the female teachers. I think it's more the product of social conditioning (Colleges of Ed) than it is biology.

Some male teachers, especially those who do coaching, have little sympathy for the kids who are targeted by bullies, considering them wimps and sissies for not fighting back.

[Gil]

:P

[SFG]

And although she did not come out and admit it – I sensed she was actually romantically interested in the male beauty as well.
I actually watched the show for a while, and it was pretty clear. She was hurt when the male beauty chased after one of the female beauties, and wound up convincing him that the team the female beauty was on was a threat and had to be eliminated. They were.

[AG]

I absolutely love online competitive first person shooter games like battlefield 2 or 2142. I never get bored about those games because I am competiting with real human players.

Thanks to HS, now I know why.

[Hope]

I used to be very competitive in online games. When I was 12 or 13 I played Tetrinet day and day out, and was consistently a top scorer. I also played World of Warcraft and was the first paladin on my server to reach level 60, an officer in the guild that first downed Onyxia on a PvP server, and was maybe 5th on the server to get an epic mount, etc.

I was pretty proud of my accomplishments back then, but most men actually loathe women who perform better than them. My husband stops playing a game every time my character became ten levels higher than his. I spent a long time dissecting various game strategies, posting on gaming discussion forums, and memorizing spell descriptions, class breakdowns and various tactics (not just in WoW, but in a multitude of other games). All of this had been fun, but ultimately, I decided, completely useless.

People were far more interested in what I looked like than how well I did in the game. No matter how much I accumulated in the game or how uber my characters became, it was still a waste of time. Nowadays I do freelance and exercise after work, and only play online games very casually -- an hour at most. Being competitive really doesn't do jack squat for a female. No wonder there are so many stupid, airheaded women who are gorgeous. They can get by on just their looks, so why bother developing any other aspect of their personality or mental faculties? Not that I'm bitter or anything; I don't look half bad for a nerd. I've just given up trying to compete.

[Jack]

Hope - it's not that guys don't care about intelligence and personality, a lot do. But men like a feminine personality, not an aggressive competitive one (generally).

Meep - the "left tail of attractiveness" is not much longer for guys than women. There are as many, if not more, fat, ugly women as there are men. And for every man that's socially awkward, there's a woman that's certifiably nuts. You seem awfully into appearances for someone who seems to be very smart.

[Brandy]

You're missing the point. Half's post reads like someone who is complaining that women aren't more competitive - that women are generally stupid and/or unmotivated and tend to get by on looks alone.

But men have created the very same situation they are now complaining about. You can't have it both ways. It's extremely frustrating for the intelligent women who read this blog to hear such an obtuse point of view.

It's like a woman running around saying all she wants is a nice guy, when there are plenty of nice guys who sit at home alone all night.

Yeah - women just want a nice guy...who happens to look like Brad Pitt, bank rolls like Bill Gates, and fucks like Ron Jeremy... nice optional.

[Hope]

Precisely, Brandy. My husband himself falls prey to this. He does want an intelligent woman who is good at what she does, but when we compete against each other, I try my best not to best him.

We played chess against each other once, the first week I lived at his place, and I won. After that, I stopped playing chess. When we play Risk and Age of Wonders (a PC turn-based strategy game) together, we always ally instead of go head-to-head. In spite of this, he still gets upset if my empire becomes too much bigger than his.

Jack, define "feminine personality," too, if you don't mind. Funnily enough, when I comment on Roissy's blog, posters say I write like I'm in my "prime" and with feminine style. I switch my writing style depending on what I'm writing about, and my personality depending on what I'm doing. I think I have yang within ying, so to speak. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

[SFG]

Sounds like you're adaptable, which is a good thing.

It is kind of funny how much effort you put into that WoW thing; I dunno, were you trying to pick up nerd guys or just having fun?

It's also possible you're more masculine than us but less masculine than roissy's posters.

They can get by on just their looks, so why bother developing any other aspect of their personality or mental faculties?
The thing is that most women aren't good-looking (by definition, a good-looking woman is better looking than most women), so it pays to cultivate at least enough brains to generate an independent income stream. If you are a bona fide hottie (or another in-demand type of woman like a female nerd), perhaps not, but most women are not so lucky.

[Hope]

It is kind of funny how much effort you put into that WoW thing; I dunno, were you trying to pick up nerd guys or just having fun?

I have a perfectionist streak that was broken academically by girls who either had outrageously higher IQs than me or who just studied way harder. I turned my Chinese work ethic onto video games, and for me, being good at something and having fun just go together.

On the other hand, I still conform to gender roles by always playing support classes like healers and buffers, the real life equivalent of caretakers and nurses. I had the urge to win at the healing game (I heal the most and the fastest!), which may have been the combined effect of estrogen and empathy. Most guys, the husband included, hate healing but love the big damage numbers.

[SFG]

Interesting. I'm glad I wasn't around for WoW, it would have wasted too much of my time.

On the other hand, I still conform to gender roles by always playing support classes like healers and buffers, the real life equivalent of caretakers and nurses.
It's interesting. Somewhere on the web I found a paper where some guy calculated percentages of males and females in RPGs, and divided them up by the standard 1st edition four classes. (WoW descends pretty clearly from D&D.) Fighters tended to be male, clerics female, mages and thieves split.

I had the urge to win at the healing game (I heal the most and the fastest!), which may have been the combined effect of estrogen and empathy. Most guys, the husband included, hate healing but love the big damage numbers.
Sounds like estrogen and testosterone to me. More likely an above-average conscientiousness and testosterone level for a female (as long as we're playng pop psych).

You never considered nursing or medical school?

[Dog of Justice]

We played chess against each other once, the first week I lived at his place, and I won. After that, I stopped playing chess. When we play Risk and Age of Wonders (a PC turn-based strategy game) together, we always ally instead of go head-to-head. In spite of this, he still gets upset if my empire becomes too much bigger than his.

I just can't understand this. As a Chinese nerd, I'd LOVE to have a partner who could be as mentally invested in a game as I was, and frequently beat me.