Opinion- With increasing popularity, it would make it harder for a woman to be world champion

I think the general thinking is that as chess becomes more popular, the chances of us seeing a female world chess champion would increase. However in my opinion it wold be the opposite. With popularity comes prizes, with prizes come the cream of the crop. 

With many young people taking up chess, things will become more dim for women since it is shown in psychology studies that men tend to fill up the extreme top levels of any activity.

The reason is unknown but most psychologists think that it is because men have a much much stronger obsessive tendencies(due to some hormonal imbalances). Some men use this tendency in the wrong place (like they get involved in relationships where for most men a breakup takes years or even a lifetime to forget) while some men use it the right way(in their careers). This obsessive tendency means that more men tend to occupy the very top of every activity where there is a decent size of them.

Looking at the future, it is all looking very grim. With so many talented young boys taking up chess, very strong female chess players are getting more and more into the shadows. I think the increasing popularity will hurt female chess even more, it would have been much easier for us to see a female chess champion had the game been moderately popular since then many men who lie on the extreme ends of the obsession tree would not have taken up chess

Any thoughts on this?

Agreed

well that's the consequence...it will be harder for males too, the more popular chess is, the more males are interested in it, the more rivals we will have. nothing you can do but to deal with it, even if all the world champions are and will be all males...then what? they are not me. millions of serious male players will never have their dreams of being a world champion come true.

     Potential World-champion class chess players are extremely rare. The combination of inborn-talents, early exposure to the game, learning the right way and obtaining great coaches, having the correct temperment to play at peak level for hours, etc. definitely seems to occur more frequently in males.

     However, should chess become more popular and more girls get involved early and aren't discouraged from continuing by peer pressure or family disapproval, the more likely it is that females with the requisite attributes will consider chess careers. Even if the great majority of that tiny, tiny fraction of humanity with the potential to become world champion are male, there is no reason that the singular greatest outlier (world champion) couldn't be female.

Very intersting discussion

     We are talking about world championship contenders. They are by definition cream of the crop.

I already gave u the reason. The biggest male outliers are way stronger than biggest female outliers. This is because men are in general way, way more obsessive than women in everything.

     We are not discussing the general population, only a minuscule number of extraordinary people. It is unlikely that such people will conform to gender stereotypes.

Contrary to what you might think, top level chess players are still human and are still bound by gender restrictions which nature has put in place.  You sound like the kind of guys who think that top level fighters can beat up a lion, well guess what? they can't. They are still human.

So yes, gender constraints and inclinations will always remain regardless of how "top level" someone is in chess.

All these new people coming to chess dont effect top tier level play.

     Apparently you are one of those people who think that women are inherently inferior in many ways. Top level chess players ARE different from the norm in some ways or else ANYBODY could just decide to work hard at chess and become world champion. Surely you're not saying that's true--you've already eliminated half the human race from having any chance. Assuming that an extreme statistical outlier can be significantly outside the norm in only one characteristic is hogwash.

     The only factor you cite that separates the genders in achieving elite status is obsessiveness. This is a character trait, not an inborn proclivity. For example, plenty of women  obsess about their appearance. (So do many men.) This is not a gender specific trait. Further, many super-GM strength players have NOT obsessed about chess. Morphy didn't think chess was worthy of a cultured gentleman's serious attention. Capablanca spent most of his time living the high life. Taimanov was more interested in the piano. Spassky was lazy and bored by chess study unless his coaches pushed him. Reshevsky spent most of his time working at his career as an accountant. By your logic, none of these men could have become championship-strength players.

I rather be great in making sandwiches than be great in playing chess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Very bad take 

Becoming obsessed is hardly a "superior" quality so i think in this regard women are actually superior to men. Obsession is works in both positive and negative light. Their natural obsessive tendencies is why it takes men a lifetime to forget their love (thus hurting them), their obsession sometimes leads them to indulge in criminal activities and when used correctly, this tendency tends to benefit them tremendously (in their careers).

It is just how it is. There is a reason why men dominate the top levels of every activity, even completely non physical activities and men tend to dominate the top level of traditionally feminine activities too (like the best cooks in the world are men). This is both a boon and a curse

     I repeat--women can be and often are just as obsessive as men. If this is the only reason you can come up with to justify your claim of inborn male superiority your theory is worthless. Even if men do "dominate the top levels of every activity" (a dubious assertion) this is simply a remnant of a long history of brute force being the basis of power in human societies.

     Your specious reasoning has been disproved in many arenas in the last century or so. Women were considered incapable of rising to the top of political life for many centuries, but people such as Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Benazir Bhutto and more seem to have done OK. Women weren't allowed into medical schools in the Russian Empire but the Soviets changed that and today women make up the majority of doctors in Russia. Women here in California could not train to be architects in the nineteenth century until Bernard Maybeck (of UC Berkeley) gave an apprenticeship and degree to Julia Morgan, who has more certified landmark building to her credit than any male architect in state history. It's historical lack of opportunity rather than gender intellectual inferiority that explains most of the male domination.

     Finally, even if the majority of top chess talents were male, an increase in the number of women playing chess will Increase rather than decrease the probability that a woman with the capability of becoming world champion will appear.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. Obsessiveness isn't gender specific. Societal pressures are the reasons for gender misrepresentation in anything. Women aren't encouraged to do certain things that men are encouraged to do. The OP proves this by implying that women will have even less of a chance to champions if the game becomes more popular. It's more negative reinforcement. That's not DNA, that's Patriarchal jibber jabber.

     Some people seemingly like to boast of their misogyny. Others, seeing this, feel compelled to express their disapproval.

That's certainly a pleasant story to tell ourselves, but it doesn't seem correct. The most egalitarian nations, like Norway, have the fewest women in STEM fields, while the most oppressive, like some middle eastern countries, have the most.

It seems women choose STEM when it's the only way to get out, but when they have a choice they don't choose it at all. So it's easy to make an argument in the OP's favor.

Usually they're bored and want people to react... but they have nothing else to say. It's the lowest hanging fruit so to speak.