Women and chess: an honest opinion

Women and chess: an honest opinion

It was about time to write something on this topic, and I haven't written anything on this blog for a while.

The title does not mean that it is a correct opinion or that it corresponds to reality, it is simply a personal and honest point of view.

Having clarified that I believe that human beings have two complementary sexes: women and men.

The biological aspect

The most marked differences are found in biology, but the further away from biology and closer to the intellectual and spiritual, there seem to be no differences or they are minimal.

These differences away from biology are not of superiority, but of attribute. I believe it is not necessary to explain that men are, in general, physically stronger, faster, and larger than women. No one will deny that fact. Although that fact does not necessarily indicate that men have a greater life expectancy, in that case, it is rather the opposite. Evolution has shaped men and women for their unique roles.

But is the man superior to the woman in chess? What criteria do we have to take into account to evaluate that?

Chess no longer has to do with brute strength, speed, or muscle size. It is a game where brain capacity is decisive. Since chess is an exclusively mental or intellectual activity, should women perform at the same level as men, right? Well, what chess needs is mostly spatial intelligence and the ability to recognize patterns. As for the former, it seems that men (in general, not every man) have a certain advantage, as for the latter, there seems to be no difference.

Women have an advantage in terms of better connectivity of both brain lobes and general connectivity, better short-term memory, among others.

Interest in the game of chess

This has nothing to do with the pure and hard of chess, but rather with preferences, inclinations, or even interest or effort that men and women put into chess. Do men and women have the same interest or preference for chess, and then, when they dedicate themselves to chess, do they put the same effort into it?

This issue seems to be only social, but the truth is that we must return to biology because it is rooted in it.

In the Nordic countries, where barriers and disincentives for men and women to choose the careers they prefer have been eliminated, it has been noted that men prefer more things or processes (physical jobs such as construction, engineering, computing, etc.), while women prefer more careers related to human beings, whether education, health sciences such as nursing, psychology, etc. The ratio is 20 to 1.

We are facing a case where greater equality does not result in women and men choosing careers in a 50/50 ratio. As researcher Jordan Peterson indicates, the Swedish government has even tried to force male-female quotas (due to a misunderstanding of the issue and rejection of the evidence in front of them), and that has not been successful.

That is precisely the missing key piece to understanding why women and men have not performed equally in chess.

Social inequality, a glance at history

Of course, there is always the issue of the principle of equality of rights, opportunities, and privileges for men and women, but even when this principle is applied, it does not guarantee that the results will be 50/50, evidence shows that men and women have different preferences.

It is important to guarantee the aforementioned principle of equality because the world still drags the barbarities of the past, the domination of brute force, where men have an advantage. In many social areas, women are still relegated in these aspects. Even in the workplace, for the same job position and performance, men still earn more than women. I consider that it should be equalized by position and performance, and it should be independent of the worker's sex.

Only in the past century did women gain the right to vote, hold leadership positions, and exercise certain rights that men already enjoyed. And the situation has not yet been equalized in all countries.

Reassessing benefits ($$$) based on role preferences

In sports, the movement of earnings is somewhat different than in traditional jobs. For example, men's soccer often generates more revenue than women's soccer, so equalizing salaries in that field would be impossible and really unfair as the current economic and commercial system is configured. But in the workplace, I believe there are no excuses.

In addition, society needs to reevaluate and consider with better eyes (read: pay much more) certain careers and jobs that may not seem as lucrative as caring for children, adults, and the elderly, and education (where coincidentally women have a greater preference), but which in the long run are fundamental to the integral development of the human being and society.

Summary

In summary, men and women have the same value and are complementary, but they are not exactly the same and have different preferences. I believe that the important thing is to fight for the principle of equality of rights, opportunities, and privileges for women and men in all areas, regardless of the results. Do not think that we are close to that, in most countries we are still very far away.

And, why not invent a game of the same elegance as chess, but where women have a certain advantage and it is more in their interest? There are other options as well.

The Bahá'í writings state that:

• The world of humanity has two wings—one is women and the other men (...). Not until both wings are equally developed can the bird fly. Should one wing remain weak, flight is impossible.

Now more than ever, it is needed.