Here's an ON TOPIC post for you chess freaks. I was just browsing around one of my favorite chess sites CHESSBASE and I came across an interesting Fact. First off, here is the link:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5014

This link is the current standings of the Men's and Women's Teams in the 38th Chess Olympiad. My question is why are Men smarter than Women when it comes to chess? It's not are men smarter than women, it's WHY?

Now, the chart shows only the elite of the elite from each participating country, but it is an accurate representation of the ENTIRE countries populace as a whole. Look carefully at the statistics. The highest rated women are not even as high as the lowest ranked men. With the exception of a few PUTZES from CANADA, most men are 2500+. Look at the women participants, most are 2100-2300. Sure there is the occasional 2500+, but those are the exceptions.

I know a lot of women who can CRUSH me in under 30 moves, there are plenty of Fantastic women chess players on this site who could checkmate me (on the rare occassion when I'm not cheating), but looking at the big picture, why are men better than women when it comes to chess? Our brains are about the same size. And we all know from the #1 post on this site of all time "Chess is NOT a sport!!", that there is no physicality to this GAME. What is their excuse? Is it that women just don't possess the WARRIOR attitude? Are men just plain smarter than women when it comes to competition? I am serious, I'd like to know.

Now, I know I'm going to hear some MALE CHAUVINISTIC GARBAGE like it's a man's game and women only recently started taking it seriously. TERRIBLE argument. Holds no water whatsoever.

I'd like some NON TROLLS to weigh in on this. Some profound thinkers. We'll have to weed through the CRAP posts, as my very name is like "troll-food". I think we'll be able to come up with a DEFINITIVE solution at the end of this all.

Does the fact that male chess players out number females by like a gazillion to 1 have anything to do with it?

Why are women better at breast feeding babies then men are.  Well, there are a heck of a lot more of them that do it, and that certainly scews any numbers.

This is for scientists to decide.

As stated above, a lot more men play chess then women do.

 Probably the right argument, but horrible analogy.

It would be interesting to see how things like the UN's (I believe it's them) Gender Parity index compare to the difference between individual countries gaps between men and women (IE, do countries with higher gender parity have less of a gap between its top men and women chess players?)

I would argue that men are naturally more inclined to be able to focus on a single task at a given moment, while women are more naturally inclined to multi-task.  I believe it is easier for a man to achieve the level of intense concentration required to excel at the highest levels of chess, while for a women it takes some effort to drive other thoughts out of the mind and only focus on the chess game.

I belive this is true by example.  Look at professions where in order to be exceptionally good you must focus on one specifc task.  Men are often the highest reagarded sugeons, as well as many of the best chefs are men as well.

I also believe this to be true by experience.  Arbitrarily ask a man what he is thinking about, most likely the reply will be nothing, or a single issue he is thinking about.  Ask a women what she is thinking about and she will usually mention several things on her mind.

This argument is not to say the men are better.  I'm arguing then men are more naturally inclined to practices where concentration on one task is required.  While women are more naturally inclined to practices involving multiple tasks to be balanced, as well as relationally dominant practices.

I was going to put this in a seperate thread, but i'll put it here:

Why is it that there are more men playing than women? Why are women not competing at the highest levels, with the exception of the Polgar sisters? Why does FIDE deem it necessary to hold a separate women’s world championship, and classify top female players as WGM's rather than just GM's?

Now, before everyone gets uptight and accusations of sexism get bandied about, we must approach this issue from a calm perspective. I believe a sober debate is vital for the health of chess, and in the course of such a debate, controversial opinions must be aired; for through such turbulence the truth will out.

As far as I can see, there are four possible reasons for the disparity in numbers. I warn you now, the first is controversial and unpalatable (and, in my opinion, unjustified) but I’m, going to say it for the purposes of balance.

1)     Men, by nature, are more amenable to games involving problem solving, spatial awareness and logic. This may or may not be true; perhaps the evolutionary development of the sexes confers certain mental abilities that, as a rule, give men and women differing skills. However, this is pop science at its worst; I would only accept this argument if it was proved by a sufficiently qualified psychologist who had done the research. If I might, I’d like to add the thought provoking quote provided in the previous discussion my Emily: When players were unaware of the sex of opponent (control condition), females played approximately as well as males. When the gender stereotype was activated (experimental condition), women showed a drastic performance drop, but only when they were aware that they were playing against a male opponent. When they (falsely) believed to be playing against a woman, they performed as well as their male opponents. It pleases me that proper research has been done, and the findings here suggest other factors are involved. If the research quoted above is accurate, this implies that women perhaps expect to not be as proficient as men. If this is deeply ingrained, then grass roots women’s chess would necessarily be adversely affected.

2)     Chess is simply more attractive as a pastime to men, statistically, for whatever reason. If this is the case, then we have no cause for worry; it is not the fault of anybody or any system that causes the disparity of numbers, just that chess is a traditionally male pursuit.

3)     Women feel excluded from chess and its male dominance. If this is the case, then there is something profoundly wrong with the game, and strenuous efforts need to be made to remove perceived barriers. Chess, I am sure you will all agree, is for anyone and everyone.

4)     It is simply a matter of time. In the days of Staunton and Morphy, chess was almost exclusively male, being played in gentlemen’s clubs and cafes. Women did not have the social mobility available today, and consequently not the access to the upper regions of the game’s development. Whilst the specific constraints of the era have undoubtedly been loosened, ancient mindsets cast a long shadow, and maybe it is still seen as male pastime. With the emergence of the modern WGM, these distinctions have fallen away, and maybe it just takes time for natural disparities to even out.

The reason I think this is an important debate is because we need to understand which of the above points is the truth. If it is point 3, and women feel excluded, then rapid and vigorous changes need to be made. If, however, they do not, and we need merely wait for time to iron out the inequities of the past, then we need not worry.

Personally, I would scrap the WGM and WIM titles. A grandmaster is a grandmaster – they have achieved the prestigious norms and have proven themselves to be amongst the top few hundred players in the world. I cannot see the benefit of retaining this difference. As far as I can tell, it merely propagates separation.

ED.

 Hmmm... I need a scientist who's done the research to tell me that before I believe it. And Concentration is not the only attribute of a good player. Creativity, abstract thinking, planning, ruthlessness... who's to say, in the balence of qualities it takes to make a chess player, which male and female aspects are more appropriate?

Similar questions have been asked about other things in life. For example, in the 18th century, one writer pointedly asked why women don't advance in education, why they are prone to emotional outbursts and why they are so frail, among other things, when compared to men.

That writer, Mary Wollstonecraft, in her seminal work A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, then goes on to eviscerate the position that such differences have anything to do with nature. She forcefully (and successfully, in my view) argues that society is the culprit, beginning with overt, explicit gender stereotypes, running all the way through subtle pressures that get applied to women.

Keep in mind, at one time people argued that it was simply absurd and contrary to nature for women to go to school. Some of our societies have made progress with respect to gender equality. But just because we make progress towards equality doesn't mean that societal pressures and expectations disappear. Chess is greatly insignificant compared to equality in fundamental rights. Nevertheless, we can't for that reason alone overlook the socio-sexual attitudes, pressures, etc.

Thus, I suspect that to whatever degree women may underperform men (and I don't have any hard data on that, so I'm not suggesting that is necessarily the case, or to what degree it is the case  (and no, anecdotes do not substitute for hard data)), we can find lots of underlying social, environmental, political, and other such circumstances that help explain such underperfomance, without recourse to inane (and often absurdly wrong) theorizing about how men and women are different.

(Note: that doesn't mean this question shouldn't be asked. Perhaps the chess community needs to be confronted with such questions in order to change what needs to be changed (I don't know what does, thus I'm not being specific) so that those external factors have less of an impact.)

It certanly looks like some men's are better at chess, but it is just a question of numbers, as said here before, sure on the top elite there may be few 2500 female chess players but they are there and the ratio men/woman is probably 5/1 in chess, the Polgas sisters ain't the only ones but the most well know for playing at high level just as good as any other man... This simply happens because above the 2500 there are almost no amateurs, you simply have to devote too much time to the game, and as an amateur 2100/2200 since the ratio 5/1 Iam not sure about if females ain't really better then males at chess, and I don't have the numbers to check it out. Anyway this topic only exists due to sexism and the pre-made believe that some differences exist, I would say this is a bad case of causality the fact that there are few females GM's

Because A precedes B that does not mean that B is caused by A, because there are more males gm that does not mean males are better or worse.

The FIDE decision to split into genders as to do with our culture and society, the rules are very old, and there always was and will be an huge difference between male and female to our society, so the decision is completely regular and since it seems to work OK and there really are few top female players to make a difference it won't change

dmvdc:

Quite right, on all counts. Chess is, as you say, a very small thing compared to the great sociatal issues involved. Perhaps, as society struggles to become more egalitarian, the benefits reaped will filter down to all apsects of life, in which case, chess will mirror larger changes.

 If I understand you correctly, are you implying that it is sexist even to debate the issue?

 I don't think it is sexist to debate the issue, but it is sexist if not moronic to state, "It's not are men smarter than women, it's WHY?"

Oh, quit living in your fantasy world and accept that men are simply different than women.

NOTE to ESOLOM. Please do not take my sentences out of context ever again. EVER!!! The correct quote would be, "My question is why are Men smarter than Women when it comes to chess? It's not are men smarter than women, it's WHY?" Huge difference from what you posted. Your previous misquote of me PROVES you to be the sexist. Shame shame shame.

Other than that, GREAT POSTS. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. I must say that ERRANT DEEDS has a great explanation in his #1 reason, even if he himself doesnt believe it.

As far as there are more men than women that play chess, that doesn't mean a DANG thing. I did not say why are there more male GMs than Female GMs. We're not talking about per capita. We're not talking about the disproportionate # of men 2500+ to women 2500+. We're talking about if you were to make a team of the 25 of the world's best Male GMs and pit them against the 25 world's best female GMs, I dont think anyone would say it would be a close one. It would be a blow out.

Without getting into too much psycho-babble, I think it boils down to females do not possess the inherent "warrior" spirit that a man does.The male instinct is to conquer, to be a leader. The female instinct is to nurture. I could have just as easily made a post like, "Why are WOMEN 99% time a better parent than a MAN is." These are the facts of life.

Hmm, I'm thinking that it might and might not.  You're right in saying that it doesn't directly impact the best, a greater number does not necessarily cause a greater achievement.  But there seems to be something intrinsically correct in thinking that a larger number of people would presumably allow for a greater change of higher.

Assuming men and women are equal would mean that while the ratings of all players (hypothetical situtaion) would fit nicely on a bell curve, with numerically more men then women, there would be numerically more men then women near the top.  However, there are presumably enough chess players in the world for that there would be less than ~165 sub-2000 women competing (when compared to the ~80 sub-2000 men).

mmm It is sexist the fact that this debate exists at all

Oy vey.

On average, women are smarter than men. However, the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women. It has to do with genetic variance.

I think I read this in: The War against Boys and she in turn got it from a reputable source.

 I respect your opinion, my friend, but I profoundly disagree. Leaving aside chess for the moment, debate is the only way to peacably make progress. For example, the Suffregette (sorry if that's spelt wrong) was responding to powerful, intrinsic sexism in society. It was the system and the mindset that was sexist, but the actions of a few women helped spark a debate that slowly started to change opinion. The change has been hard and is ongoing, but without the debate there would be no change at all. Without the debate, any individual or group of protesters would simply be ignored, to the detriment of us all. Would you label the debate sparked by the great civil rights movements of the sixties as 'racist'? Was Martin Luther King, the great apostle of freedom, a racist because he debated?

I like to watch women's chess games.  A lot of the time, they are terrifically aggressive.