Boys are better at chess than Girls.

this is proof enough for me!!

Well, if there are things women do better than men ( and I am sure there are ) ofcourse there MUST be things men do better than women too, no ?  Its odd how I have NEVER seen anyone bring up sexism when women are said to be better than men at something, and as a man , it doesnt bother me at all. Whats the problem with men being better at some things ?  As for men being better because more men play that does NOT explain why the same % of females dont reach 2500 fide.  

scientifically, it has been proven that men are better at problem solving and spatial relations - both key elements in chess...on the other hand, there's women players out there that will destroy any opponent they come across...but one thing I think we can all agree on though - damn, the ladies look sexy doing it

ChessDweeb post 128 you cannot be serious, anyway lmpantso. If the reference topics you give were for reasons unknown to be categorised as games or sport then the boys would no doubt apply themselves and excel. Cosmopolitan a most respected publication & known for pioneering journalism, well possibly for nine year old girls. One woman in the top one hundred so statistically it must follow that girls are equal to or better than boys.

I agree that tomboys sometimes beat up sissy's but this is the minority & cannot be projected for all.

Some can accept the obvious however imperfect, others may seek out endless research to prove a flat earth.

>:) 

Citing statistics show nothing more than trends, and the one we are discussing has nothing to do with biology; it is simply a matter of sociology

Men may be better at chess on paper, but that does not mean men are inherently better at chess than women.

The GM's we see today are from a different generation where women were not encouraged to pursue things like science , math, and chess. 

Comparing boys and girls has nothing to do with biology, an interesting post.  For the social conditioning of this generation to overcome the biology built up from countless previous generations may take a little while yet, how long can you wait, good luck. & I don't know if the wait will ever end its a male / female thing after all.

>:)

For one, a lot of the statistics cited here a completely wrong. The statement in question is whether men are innately better than women, not whether GM men are better than GM women. Besides, there's too much chance in statistics from ratings for there to be much meaning; there's pure chance (maybe just by chance women have made more blunders), maybe there are a larger percantage of women who have not reached their full rating (say 1500 women who are actually 1900 strength), as said women have had less chance/years to get good, or maybe it is even possibly that it is nature that women play wilder, less sound openings. Also, one person said that men tended to be better than women and cited that they had seen a few games between men and women that did not enjoy chess. Unless he has seen thousands upon thousands of games, the largest factors are by far beginner's luck and individual intelligence/skill. Lastly, proof by Fischer said so is completely ridiculous. Fischer was also a Holocaust denier, but this does it did not happen.

That said, I think it is quite possible that men tend to be better. Men tend to do better at analytical/spatial thinking, and that is what is needed in chess. Also, more men in the top levels is probably explained by men having larger deviation from average IQ (this makes sense evolution-wise if you think about it. By the way, please don't start an argument about evolution) However, there is really no proof supporting any side.

On a side note, the statement may be at least partially self-fulfilling. As said before, it's really not convincing when you say "Women might not be as good at men as chess. Anyway, play chess!"

See, what did I say?

You question the Almighty Fischer? Heresy!

These threads are not about 'why' a disparity exists. The disparity simply exists and that's that. It could be caused by biological differences, or sociological differences between males and females (internationally), but nobody knows.

Chess seems to be an especially touchy subject when discussing the disparity between female professionals and male professionals. It seems some people seem to think that the conclusion being drawn is that men are more intelligent than women (lol).

You wouldn't notice much backlash if you said something like, "men are physically better than women at hockey, tennis, soccer, basketball,... etc" because it's quite simply a clear and obvious difference in general body strength.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/brain/she-thinks

Sure they are, or they wouldn't be started.  That there are far more men that play chess and that they dominate the highest ranks is so blatantly obvious that it wouldn't be worth pointing out if your intent wasn't to start some kind of discussion about the reasons for these disparities.  If the intent were just to state the blatantly obvious we should also expect to see more topics like "Bishops Move Diagonally" or "There are 64 Squares on a Chess Board".

LisaV, I don't know if you realize this, but this was exactly what I was trying to avoid. This is just a discussion. My goal is not to put women down, nor make them feel left out, but can I not mention a point about why men may be better? It's based on facts, and it's not like men like that because they feel superior, it's just what I think. So what's horrible is that even if I were to win this discussion, I would be seen as a sexist asshole anyways. Would all I achieve is women who just want to give up chess because of this? I bet if it was a discussion about anything other than sexes or races I would be agreed with but no. Some women are just as good as men, but when you take everybody into account, it's not really like that. The ideas in chess usually come easier to the problem solvers (males) who have a natural talent in the area can improve at chess easier. This skill and their natural obsession can make great chess players. It's just less common than that to happen to a woman and although Judit Polgar made history, she still couldn't win the world championship. You have to ask yourself, "why isn't there a women winning the world championship?" "Because there are less female players." "Why?" "Because they are less interested?" "Does that have anything to do with having trouble with a game like that and lack of obsession?". Again, there are women who aren't like that, and they make good chess players. But most of them aren't like that that's all. That's why I rarely see girls interested in math, but there is always that exception as well. Good for you if you can be one of those exceptions. But is it so wrong to discuss something, trying to use facts? It has nothing to with sex inferiority, and most girls on here are probably exceptions anyway. I suppose this is pointless because people will just think I'm evil because I'm saying that. I'm not evil. But I'm interested in this topic because it's indeed strange how (and especially back then) there is no female steinitz, or morphy for instance, it was just men playing. You just have to wonder why.

the highest rated GM is a man

And?

Look how sexist those links are!! God, we're worse than women with so many different things, even chess!!

If anyone claims they are better at certain stuff, it's women. I have seen times on tv where women bash men and say they are better at things, like noticing new stuff. It's rather jokingly, but they do think it's true.  Males just deal with it though and are perfectly fine. In fact they're probably right. Now, do you have complete proof of those claims? Well as much proof as the chess thing. Are those links not more sexist than what I'm doing? If you don't think that's sexist, why do you think I'm sexist?

I am not one of those women who thinks that women are equal as men in everything. Yes, men are phyiscally stronger than woman. In most competative sports the majority of men will always dominate women. How ever the gap will get smaller over centuries as more women are raised to do the same things as men. 40 years ago girls did not participate in sports like baseball, basketball, etc. But in the last few decades schools & society have changed. Now there are millions of girls in schools playing those sports. It is very concievable that someday a woman could play baseball in the major leagues. Maybe she wouldn't be a homerun hitter, but she could easily be a good to great hitter. Talent, hard work, and God given gifts are not limited to men. For the person who said in 150 years of chess there have been very few women who were good at chess. Sure, but take into account that for approximately the first 120 years or so, woman were not encouraged to do anything but be mothers when they grew up, while men throughout history have always been competiters, warriors, etc. & were expected to be that way. Now that girls are encouraged to play chess in schools, it will be interesting to see in 50 years the difference. I'm betting that there will be a lot more woman GMs and that tournaments will no longer be seperated by male or female. This is an equal game for whoever plays it, brain power & intelligence is not a male trait, it's a human trait.

Grobe, I have told you many other reasons but instead you just say "what an awful post. I'm not reading it." and then argue the easier claims which are only based on the number of gm's. Could you instead refute my earlier posts and also Reb's claim of that there is a less percentage  of females who play chess getting to 2500 (and this is the general likeliness of this happening to a woman as compared to a man). And I hope your refutation isn't "That's not true.".

Genral brainpower is equal. Sometimes women completely outsmart men. But there are many different parts of the brain, like one guy posted women generally have better memory while men have a more suited perhaps brain for problem solving. I'm only discussing this because it's so incredible as yes I agree with you on how they have equal brainpower overall but it's extremely fascinating how there was not one particularly good woman back in the 1800s and part of that is because it was thought of as a men's game (after all, only men played it) but there just has to be something else. I mean, if women were just as good even in that time the men would love it but there wasn't. but nobody knows the exact reason. We can only make educated guesses. My posts have nothing to do with insulting women, it's very interesting how there are so much less women who play. Does that make me sexist grobe?