A School Essay on Gender in Chess - Chess Forums - Page 7

Apr 6, 2025

0

#121

wrote:

while there are many problems with IQ, I think you would need rather strong evidence to claim it is "completely false"

you are right, i is simply not used in the way it was intended, it was supposed to be used for the SOLE purpose of identifying kids who needed extra help in school.

Qoiuoiuoiuoiu

Apr 6, 2025

0

#122

MaetsNori wrote:

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

...
The more plausible explanation involves the gender disparity of outliers. Males are the extreme species of the gender, that is, nature experiments with genetic outliers far more with males of the species than females because males are more expendable in the reproductive process. This is seen across most species.

...

A very interesting point to consider!

Though I believe we're also glossing over what needs to be considered in addition, with such discussions: childhood, and how players are raised.

The Polgars were noteworthy because of how chess-obsessed their childhood was. How novel and unique an idea it seemed, for female youths to be raised on chess!

Yet this is relatively common practice among aspiring boy players.

I believe if we really want to try to close the gender gap in chess, we need to start raising girl players the same way we raise our boys ... but then we'll be opening a whole new discussion, in terms of socio-cultural expectations and norms ...

100%, you don't really see parents sending female kids to, like, chess schools or the like. There's just not as much of a culture around having women become elite chess players, either because of stereotypes, discrimination, or belief that women are naturally worse at chess.

NM darkunorthodox88

Apr 6, 2025

0

#123

No one said nature is the only explanation. Obviously nurture has some influence so tryin to disprove a phenomena caused by both factors by pointing to a result that doesnt perfectly fit the data doesnt work. It fits the data pretty darn well though.

That they are not as many female players period is obviously not caused by nature. That has sociological explanations but why the distribution of player by strength is the way it is fits the nature hypothesis very well. What the polgar sister experiment proved was that there is no hard determinist limit on a female player reaching world class status.

AGC-Gambit_YT

Apr 6, 2025

0

#124

wrote:

For my school project on gendered sports, I decided to explore the game of chess. What I found was that chess, a game that seems like it should be neutral, has a complex and often unfair history when it comes to gender. Chess has been around for over 1500 years, and for most of that time, it's been seen as a game for men. In medieval Europe, chess was played by men in exclusive clubs and bars. This made it seem like chess was only for men, and women weren't welcome. In the 19th and 20th centuries, chess clubs and tournaments became popular. But women were often left out or made to play in separate, lower-level competitions. This made it seem like women weren't as good at chess as men, and it kept women from getting the recognition they deserved. One woman who stood out was Vera Menchik, a Russian-British chess player. She was a world champion seven times, and she proved that women could be just as good at chess as men. But even her success was often attributed to her playing style being "more like a man's." In recent years, there have been efforts to make chess more inclusive. There are now women's chess organizations, tournaments, and initiatives to encourage more women to play. But despite these efforts, chess is still a game dominated by men. So why is chess still seen as a game for men? One reason is that old stereotypes and biases persist. Many people still think that chess is a game for men, and that women aren't as good at it. These biases can discourage women from playing chess or pursuing competitive chess careers. Another reason is that women chess players often don't get the recognition they deserve. They're underrepresented in the media, and their achievements are often overlooked. In conclusion, the story of chess and gender is complex and often unfair. But by recognizing and challenging these biases, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable chess community.

This is 100% AI, I checked it. I wouldn't turn this in to your teacher if I were you!

bro is Chat GPT

AGC-Gambit_YT

Apr 6, 2025

0

#125

wrote:

No one said nature is the only explanation. Obviously nurture has some influence so tryin to disprove a phenomena caused by both factors by pointing to a result that doesnt perfectly fit the data doesnt work. It fits the data pretty darn well though.

That they are not as many female players period is obviously not caused by nature. That has sociological explanations but why the distribution of player by strength is the way it is fits the nature hypothesis very well. What the polgar sister experiment proved was that there is no hard determinist limit on a female player reaching world class status.

nuture?

Wilsons_World

Apr 6, 2025

0

#126

jake-133209 wrote:

For my school project on gendered sports, I decided to explore the game of chess. What I found was that chess, a game that seems like it should be neutral, has a complex and often unfair history when it comes to gender. Chess has been around for over 1500 years, and for most of that time, it's been seen as a game for men. In medieval Europe, chess was played by men in exclusive clubs and bars. This made it seem like chess was only for men, and women weren't welcome. In the 19th and 20th centuries, chess clubs and tournaments became popular. But women were often left out or made to play in separate, lower-level competitions. This made it seem like women weren't as good at chess as men, and it kept women from getting the recognition they deserved. One woman who stood out was Vera Menchik, a Russian-British chess player. She was a world champion seven times, and she proved that women could be just as good at chess as men. But even her success was often attributed to her playing style being "more like a man's." In recent years, there have been efforts to make chess more inclusive. There are now women's chess organizations, tournaments, and initiatives to encourage more women to play. But despite these efforts, chess is still a game dominated by men. So why is chess still seen as a game for men? One reason is that old stereotypes and biases persist. Many people still think that chess is a game for men, and that women aren't as good at it. These biases can discourage women from playing chess or pursuing competitive chess careers. Another reason is that women chess players often don't get the recognition they deserve. They're underrepresented in the media, and their achievements are often overlooked. In conclusion, the story of chess and gender is complex and often unfair. But by recognizing and challenging these biases, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable chess community.

Chess has a long history where men were predominantly involved, but that was more about societal norms than the game itself favoring men. Over recent decades, there's been a big push for inclusivity. Initiatives like women's tournaments and coaching programs actively level the playing field. Plus, there are standout women players like Judit Polgár who've proven that skill, not gender, determines success in chess. Modern chess organizations are also stepping up with support and equal opportunities. Overall, while there were challenges, chess is moving towards a fairer future where talent shines regardless of gender.

qingDesolate

Apr 6, 2025

0

#127

ChessAGC_YT wrote:

wrote:

No one said nature is the only explanation. Obviously nurture has some influence so tryin to disprove a phenomena caused by both factors by pointing to a result that doesnt perfectly fit the data doesnt work. It fits the data pretty darn well though.

That they are not as many female players period is obviously not caused by nature. That has sociological explanations but why the distribution of player by strength is the way it is fits the nature hypothesis very well. What the polgar sister experiment proved was that there is no hard determinist limit on a female player reaching world class status.

nuture?

it means upbringing.

NM darkunorthodox88

Apr 7, 2025

0

#128

Qoiuoiuoiuoiu wrote:

BERSERK wrote:

Kateryna Lagno @KaterynaLagno recently said on the Levitov Chess podcast that women are mostly not as fanatical as men, women lack the X factor, again there are exceptions (Polgar and some others), this is confirmed by scientific studies that say that among men the range of variation in cognitive abilities is greater than among women, that is, among men there are more geniuses and at the same time more mentally disabled people, women are mostly a little more average.

By the way, here is one of the most beautiful games of Kateryna Lagno in her career, in the recent FIDE Women's Grand Prix 2024/2025 - Monaco tournament

Okey dokey. This is the third time I've said this. The Variability Hypothesis is UNPROVEN. Research is conflicted. People have been doing research for years on this.

At least read the wikipedia article before citing the Variability Hypothesis as the reason for fewer women playing chess.

Anyway, only 11% of FIDE members are women, so the Variability Hypothesis doesn't explain that either. After all, claiming men are more variable in intelligence should cause the following: More men than women at high levels and equal amounts of men and women at average levels. We don't see that however, proving the Variability Hypothesis is not responsible for the lack of female representation in chess.

the variability hypothesis as you call it has nothing to do with the number of female players, but the strength distribution , some people argue that the number of female players explains the why so few proportionally reach master and grandmaster level. The reason im skeptical of that explanation is that i dont think female pros work on their chess any less harder than male counterparts but struggle far more to reach the same barriers. Even the polgar sisters despite being raised in the same environment reached 3 different results, IM level , GM level and world class Super GM level.
in other words, once you already have your top female players, if the variability hypothesis is incorrect, you would expect them to reach similar milestones to men but thats not what you see. For example, female players are about 10-15% of the playing population but in the top 100, you dont even get 5 , the number has always been in the 0-3 range. Would be interesting to see the same kind of data of the world top 1000 but i dont expect the numbers to be that much better.

AGC-Gambit_YT

Apr 9, 2025

0

#129

wrote:

uh yeah, everybody knows women are looked down on for chess. its dumb asf bc i do beat adult men even though I'm a 13 yo girl, but that's how men think. #feminism please

wild to believe I was the first to downvote this comment (its true)

nickmvf

Jul 17, 2025

0

#130

I grew up thinking chess was this gender-neutral space—just a game of minds. But over time, I started noticing how differently girls were treated. I remember a tournament where a girl beat two strong players, and people acted like it was some miracle. If a guy had done the same, it would’ve just been “expected.” Back in school, I was once assigned to write an essay on gender dynamics in chess, and it turned out to be a lot more complex than I expected. I had to explore not just tournament stats, but also cultural perceptions, access to training, and the psychological barriers often faced by women in the sport. It was overwhelming at first, but I ended up learning a lot—not just about chess, but about how subtle bias can shape opportunities. I didn’t have much time to polish my draft, so I decided to order essay by StudyMoose just to see how a pro would approach it. The draft I got helped me see the argument structure more clearly and taught me how to present evidence in a more balanced way. It wasn’t about shortcuts—it was about learning more effectively under pressure.

Blockocheess

Jul 17, 2025

0

#131

The sterotype of girls tend to be worse at chess, could be fueld by the fact that the requirements for a women's title is often significantly lower than the men's counterpart.