Why are there so little female chess players?
Sort:
MovedtoLiches
Feb 12, 2021
0
#101
Women are impulsive, do not self criticize well (or at all), and they simply cannot keep their aggression in check. They are also extremely competitive, so watch out for colorful language and the occasional smashed object. Lastly, and most importantly, they never forget. Every emotion experienced comes back the same, so it’s a fight from the start.
Pretty good summary tbh.
Hello
There are only a few female chess players because they have found some other activities that they feel interesting to them.
Feb 12, 2021
0
#105
Soniasthetics wrote:
Pretty good summary tbh.
I have experience. I’ve been teaching my wife to play since August.
Magnus-GOAT wrote:
Sex differences in intelligence ...
Sex differences in intelligence
"All or most of the major tests commonly used to measure intelligence have been constructed so that there are no overall score differences between males and females. Thus, there is little difference between the average IQ scores of men and women."
What about Emotional Quotient? (EQ)
Feb 12, 2021
0
#107
Eucalyptus44 wrote:
As a female player who has taught chess at schools for years, the under-representation of females in the chess world is more to do with the social aspect and nothing to do with innate ability. In general many young boys love the competitive cut and thrust of chess in the primary school, young girls don’t feel so much at home in this rough-and-tumble world! This debate is complex and this is just a preliminary observation!
this was so meaningful 😊
Experience is the teacher
Feb 12, 2021
0
#110
This topic has been beaten to death, and so many other smart, cogent, and tall women have already made good points, so I feel a bit silly making this post - but, well, I have two cents to toss into this open can of worms, and I guess that's what I'm going to do.
I'm a female mathematics phd student, so although I only got back into chess recently, I nevertheless have a good amount of experience with gender imbalance in a field I am passionate about. As such, when I watched The Queen's Gambit and decided to pick this game back up, I thought to compare the gender ratios in math and chess with each other. Something that I think is rather instructive is that the gender imbalance in math is less pronounced than it is in chess, and by quite a bit, too. In the US, for instance, roughly 25% of all math doctoral degrees are awarded to women, compared to the 15% of all chess players who are women. Women make up something like 5-10% of all math professors, compared with perhaps 2% of all chess grandmasters. Statistics like these pose a puzzling contradiction to a proponent of biological explanations, because surely it requires more time, dedication, intellect, and passion to obtain any doctoral degree than to simply play chess as a hobby!
So what are we left with? I think that NotesFromUnderdog said it best, even though her point was later misconstrued. There is no need to resort to dodgy biological explanations that do not hold up under scrutiny when we already have sufficient sociological ones. Perhaps the simplest and most comprehensible is the tautological one she presented: women aren't in chess because women aren't in chess. That is, the underrepresentation of women in chess (or any field, really) is a self-perpetuating problem, because people in general don't like to enter spaces where they are outsiders. Add to this the stunning levels of hostility, sexism, dismissiveness, etc that women face in many of these fields, and it is as puzzling as it is obvious why so many seem to ignore Occam's razor and resort immediately to biological explanations.
(As a fun little aside: did you know that Emmy Noether, arguably the most noteworthy female mathematician, shares her name on the Lasker-Noether Theorem with none other than Emanuel Lasker himself? A neat intersection of these two little worlds 
)
I have already given the correct, factual answer. Men are simply more obsessive than women and it has been proven millions of times through experiments and brain studies. Therefore men dominate anything which requires constant practice to be good. Also, the only way for men to get any love and respect is to be successful, while women are valued for simply being a woman so they don't have the social incentive to enter cut throat competition.
Feb 12, 2021
0
#112
JogoReal wrote:
The gap male/female skills in tennis is higher than in chess. But tennis is full of women: players and public, so why? Because a tennis court is MUCH more expensive than a chess board. Tennis is not and never was the hobby of poor men.
This makes practically NO sense. It is clear to me that you are very prejudice. Why do you have the perception that females only gravitate towards the finer things in life? Also how is tennis expensive? There are public courts in most villages where you don't have to pay a penny. Serena Williams doesn't play tennis because it is "expensive" she plays it because it requires physical activity and she is great at it. Also chess was the hobby of poor men however, most girls weren't introduced to these games. Most girls were discouraged when losing a game because it was blamed on their gender. Instead they were expected to take cause of the household.
Its 2021 and people still believe males are more superior than women.
Its embarrassing 🤡
nehetehe wrote:
JogoReal wrote:
The gap male/female skills in tennis is higher than in chess. But tennis is full of women: players and public, so why? Because a tennis court is MUCH more expensive than a chess board. Tennis is not and never was the hobby of poor men.
This makes practically NO sense. It is clear to me that you are very prejudice. Why do you have the perception that females only gravitate towards the finer things in life? Also how is tennis expensive? There are public courts in most villages where you don't have to pay a penny. Serena Williams doesn't play tennis because it is "expensive" she plays it because it requires physical activity and she is great at it. Also chess was the hobby of poor men however, most girls weren't introduced to these games. Most girls were discouraged when losing a game because it was blamed on their gender. Instead they were expected to take cause of the household.
Its 2021 and people still believe males are more superior than women.
Its embarrassing 🤡
In chess men simply are better, a woman would have to prove us wrong
Feb 12, 2021
0
#114
JogoReal wrote:
One should not jump to conclusions about being better at chess and being more intelligent. Obviously intelligence is needed to do a good crochet or tapestry work. I am zero in that, many women are good, it doesn't mean they are clever than me. Intelligence is something over-complex and one has to view the complete picture (the many dimensions of intelligence) to have an idea about.
The correct sentence would be, "It doesn't mean they are more clever than me."
Obviously intelligence is needed to do a good crochet or tapestry work. Crochet could be an interest to men, but they were expected to earn money. Its not because men are less capable of crocheting, its because it wasn't really available for them.
I must admit your rating is high, but there are better female players than you.
nehetehe wrote:
JogoReal wrote:
One should not jump to conclusions about being better at chess and being more intelligent. Obviously intelligence is needed to do a good crochet or tapestry work. I am zero in that, many women are good, it doesn't mean they are clever than me. Intelligence is something over-complex and one has to view the complete picture (the many dimensions of intelligence) to have an idea about.
The correct sentence would be, "It doesn't mean they are more clever than me."
Obviously intelligence is needed to do a good crochet or tapestry work. Crochet could be an interest to men, but they were expected to earn money. Its not because men are less capable of crocheting, its because it wasn't really available for them.
I must admit your rating is high, but there are better female players than you.
There are better ur right, only a handful tho.
it's not entirely fair contextually to just say "oh there are better female players than u" when in reality the amount of female players better than him are probably only a handful amount.
Magnus-GOAT wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari hat geschrieben:
In chess men simply are better, a woman would have to prove us wrong
"to prove US wrong" = ...
Judit Polgar already did ... "world ranking of No. 8 in 2005"
So she was BETTER than +99% of all chess players (INCL. of tousands of men) !
So to use your "logic" ... "only 7 men were better than Judit" ... you missed the point - which is by the way the topic - that a LOT LESS women play chess, therefore thousands of great female chess talents are/were even not detected !
Her ranking of number 8 didn't mean anything. She wasn't consistent, she regularly got smashed by the top players, although she did have some standout wins like against Kasparov.
And she's the only female player in chess history to even be anywhere near the top 10 male players in the world. She was clearly outclassed.
The chess community, especially women, always overhype Judit's success. yes she was in the top 10, but her performances weren't THAT insane if u look at the context of the players she was competing with. the fact that no ones been able to even get close to Judit's performances also highlights the clear difference in capability.
Magnus-GOAT wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari hat geschrieben:
In chess men simply are better, a woman would have to prove us wrong
"to prove US wrong" = ...
Judit Polgar already did ... "world ranking of No. 8 in 2005"
So she was BETTER than +99% of all chess players (INCL. of tousands of men) !
So to use your "logic" ... "only 7 men were better than Judit" ... you missed the point - which is by the way the topic - that a LOT LESS women play chess, therefore thousands of great female chess talents are/were even not detected !
I was talking about the top level. No woman has ever come close to taking the title. Infact no woman has ever come close to even being good enough to give the world champion a scare in terms of losing his title. Every top female player of every era was nothing compared to the corresponding world champion. It just reinforces the belief that women are not capable at chess, it's on women to prove this wrong.
Why are you so pessimistic towards women playing chess?
ChevroletCorvetteC5R wrote:
Because they suck
Have a nice day!
kartikeya_tiwari wrote:
Magnus-GOAT wrote:
kartikeya_tiwari hat geschrieben:
In chess men simply are better, a woman would have to prove us wrong
"to prove US wrong" = ...
Judit Polgar already did ... "world ranking of No. 8 in 2005"
So she was BETTER than +99% of all chess players (INCL. of tousands of men) !
So to use your "logic" ... "only 7 men were better than Judit" ... you missed the point - which is by the way the topic - that a LOT LESS women play chess, therefore thousands of great female chess talents are/were even not detected !
I was talking about the top level. No woman has ever come close to taking the title. Infact no woman has ever come close to even being good enough to give the world champion a scare in terms of losing his title. Every top female player of every era was nothing compared to the corresponding world champion. It just reinforces the belief that women are not capable at chess, it's on women to prove this wrong.
Why are you so pessimistic towards women playing chess?