. Why are women playing with dolls instead of erector sets when they are children? Why is it by high school science fairs are already dominated by males?
Because culture tells them to do so.
If you know anything about chess history, you would know that chauvanistic pigs ruled for quite a while...it is hard for the boy's club to accept the "weaker" sex with open arms.
So did you guys bring this topic up because of Susan Polgar's stupid comments on twitter yesterday and that Sopiko(the official wcc commentator) does not seem to know much about chess? To be honest, when a female is commentating chess games I usually turn it off, not because of her gender but her weaker knowledge in the game. Just tell me a good female chess commentator and I might change my mind.
Heck, it would be nice to get a commentator that doesn't giggle every 15 seconds.
So did you guys bring this topic up because of Susan Polgar's stupid comments on twitter yesterday and that Sopiko(the official wcc commentator) does not seem to know much about chess? To be honest, when a female is commentating chess games I usually turn it off, not because of her gender but her weaker knowledge in the game. Just tell me a good female chess commentator and I might change my mind.
I don't know what was Susan Polgar saying on her comments, but in my opinion it is worth to listen the explanations of a GM who surely knows more about chess than all us. She may have a "weaker knowledge in the game", but weaker with respect to whom? With respect to you?! Nope, weaker with respect to the best chess players in the world, who are just a few tens. I wouldn't undervalue the knowledge of a GM just because she is not norwegian.
The top tournaments feature men because the strongest players are currently men. It's all a matter of the numbers of women that play chess and the number of men that play chess. The more, the higher chance there is of producing a stronger player. Susan Polgar used to participate in some mens tournaments as well.
The top tournaments feature men because the strongest players are currently men. It's all a matter of the numbers of women that play chess and the number of men that play chess. The more, the higher chance there is of producing a stronger player. Susan Polgar used to participate in some mens tournaments as well.
Oh, FFS.
No, it's not. Participation rates have been proven not to be the cause of the gender performance difference, despite biased research efforts that have tried to prove otherwise.
The top tournaments feature men because the strongest players are currently men. It's all a matter of the numbers of women that play chess and the number of men that play chess. The more, the higher chance there is of producing a stronger player. Susan Polgar used to participate in some mens tournaments as well.
Oh, FFS.
No, it's not. Participation rates have been proven not to be the cause of the gender performance difference, despite biased research efforts that have tried to prove otherwise.
Ok. Do you have any other explanation for this?
Ok. Do you have any other explanation for this?
Besides the obvious? I guess one could always speculate on the effect that women's-only tournaments have on the ratings of women players. If there is considerable separation in the pools of male and female players, then restricting oneself to only one of these pools (the female one) makes it so that one's rating is not commensurate with the ratings in the other pool. But I don't think the top-rated female players actually do that - they play in the unisex tournaments along with the male players.
Some people theorize that the difference is because of cultural pressures. This is also a dubious explanation, since it's difficult to imagine how this this kind of pressure could affect every single female player in the world. For instance, knowing what kind of childhood encouragement the Polgar sisters received, and seeing that Judit Polgar, a veritable chess machine from childhood on, could only reach a rating ~100 points below the best men, casts doubt on this theory as well. In addition, if this theory were valid, one would expect the performance gap to lessen over time, as cultural pressures are diminished in our equality-seeking world. However, this gap is actually widening, probably because when cultural pressures are removed, more and more casual women players are registering a FIDE rating.
I'm sorry, but I cannot offer you a logical explanation for the gender performance gap that would both support the idea that men and women have equal chess potential on average, and stand up to scrutiny. This, of course, does not mean that e.g. Natalia Pogonina couldn't mop the floor with the sorry asses of us non-titled male players.
women are just not as good in chess as men. the highest female on the FIDE ratinglist was judit polgar on place 8. she is now on place 67
I think that's only the case because of the number of enthusiast chess player for each gender. I think if you had equal number of players with equal learning conditions, there should be plenty of representation of female players in the master ranks.
That's simply disproven by the fact that we have a champion from Norway, a former world number 1 and legendary champion from India, top grandmasters from Armenia and other small countries without a huge talent pool. There is a far larger talent pool of high quality women chess players than there were Norwegian chess players before Carlsen made chess popular there. The fact that not even one woman has been able to crack the top 5 despite greater represenation than several nations that have, simply makes this argument nothing more than a convenient excuse for those who don't want to accept a reality where men just happen to have certain tools that make them better at chess.
currently only one woman is in the top 100 chess players in the world and she is Judith Polgar.
There are 2 women in the top 100. Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan.
That's simply disproven by the fact that we have a champion from Norway, a former world number 1 and legendary champion from India, top grandmasters from Armenia and other small countries without a huge talent pool. There is a far larger talent pool of high quality women chess players than there were Norwegian chess players before Carlsen made chess popular there. The fact that not even one woman has been able to crack the top 5 despite greater represenation than several nations that have, simply makes this argument nothing more than a convenient excuse for those who don't want to accept a reality where men just happen to have certain tools that make them better at chess.
Also, if you want scientific proof, you could just read the article to which I linked on the previous page:
women are just not as good in chess as men. the highest female on the FIDE ratinglist was judit polgar on place 8. she is now on place 67
I think that's only the case because of the number of enthusiast chess player for each gender. I think if you had equal number of players with equal learning conditions, there should be plenty of representation of female players in the master ranks.
That's simply disproven by the fact that we have a champion from Norway, a former world number 1 and legendary champion from India, top grandmasters from Armenia and other small countries without a huge talent pool. There is a far larger talent pool of high quality women chess players than there were Norwegian chess players before Carlsen made chess popular there. The fact that not even one woman has been able to crack the top 5 despite greater represenation than several nations that have, simply makes this argument nothing more than a convenient excuse for those who don't want to accept a reality where men just happen to have certain tools that make them better at chess.
Men are better at chess? That's simply disproven by the fact that there are some men who are really bad at chess!
Oh, wait, that's as silly as your argument. Oh well.
The top tournaments feature men because the strongest players are currently men. It's all a matter of the numbers of women that play chess and the number of men that play chess. The more, the higher chance there is of producing a stronger player. Susan Polgar used to participate in some mens tournaments as well.
Oh, FFS.
No, it's not. Participation rates have been proven not to be the cause of the gender performance difference, despite biased research efforts that have tried to prove otherwise.
That didn't disprove anything... did you even read it?
Not that I think participation explains it all, there are definitely biological, sociological, and psychological factors too.
How does one prove how well a person would perform at something... if they don't perform it?
A woman; a hat-wearer; tap dancer; or any other member of some arbitrary group might (hypothetically) have the potential to be the greatest chess player of the time... if they did so I woul not be quick to accept that gender; hat-wearing or proficiency in tap dancing necessarily correlated in any significant way with their chess ability. At least not without strong evidence... :)
Hehehe! ;)
women are more social, they don't like to sit in a silent room for 3 hours moving plastic trinkets on a plastic board. Men ... not so much
women are just not as good in chess as men. the highest female on the FIDE ratinglist was judit polgar on place 8. she is now on place 67
I think that's only the case because of the number of enthusiast chess player for each gender. I think if you had equal number of players with equal learning conditions, there should be plenty of representation of female players in the master ranks.
That's simply disproven by the fact that we have a champion from Norway, a former world number 1 and legendary champion from India, top grandmasters from Armenia and other small countries without a huge talent pool. There is a far larger talent pool of high quality women chess players than there were Norwegian chess players before Carlsen made chess popular there. The fact that not even one woman has been able to crack the top 5 despite greater represenation than several nations that have, simply makes this argument nothing more than a convenient excuse for those who don't want to accept a reality where men just happen to have certain tools that make them better at chess.
Men are better at chess? That's simply disproven by the fact that there are some men who are really bad at chess!
Oh, wait, that's as silly as your argument. Oh well.
Wow, that's a beautiful strawman and way to miss the point entirely.
Of course the sexes are equal in intellectual capacities. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the brains of males and females and their capacities and potential.
The differences in performance come from cultural frameworks and practiced behaviors.
Look, it's indeed idiotic to say men and women are totally different and incomparable.
But it's just as stupid to say they're exactly the same. Of course there are differences.