Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

"Yes indeed I am not here for useless fights as I have better things to do."

   Good. Then stop attacking me and go do them.

 i dont think so just look how susan polgar plays her games , for she can play as good as many man

Guys just play chess brilliant. Girls are good at hoola hoop. Horses for courses.

Some guys play great, some play lousy; some ladies play great, some play lousy; most of both play mediocre chess.

yes that's true too :)

...

and yet they all want to flah the king!

Men get completely obsessed/absorbedd with the activities they love.

Men are soldiers!!!!!!!

Hahaha! Yeah like changing your diaper when you were a baby. I'd like to see men do that without destroying their gag reflex muscles.lols

Gosh, you all may be good at chess, but you're freaking lousy biologists. Almost none of the proposed sexual dimorphisms people are talking about in this thread are real... Just a bunch of made up evolutionary psychology. 

That was amazing. Soooooo funny. I can't stop laughing. Thank you, thank you :)

Am I the only one thinks Cheeky is hot? 

I am NOT a proponent of misogyny.  I believe women are as great at 'being human' as ANY man, and in many ways better.
I believe in the evolotuion, and liberation of humanity as a whole.  We are growing as a species into MUCH brighter times.
 I do believe though, that it is important(through this growth) to understand "who and what" we are as individual sexes. 
Being heavily emotional, overthought and vulnerable is not a human weakness, but it IS a weakness in chess.

I understand. Consider it a character flaw of mine: when I see someone wrong on the Internet, I feel an urge to correct them. These "women in chess" threads pop up every now and then, and the story is always the same: people - new people who haven't read the previous threads or who didn't understand them - eventually defend women's underperformance using the participation rates argument, which is false. I have a personal need to set the record straight, since I view the propagation of misinformation as a dangerous thing. Lately, I have tried to make my correction as concise as possible, but I inevitably get sucked into an argument with someone who wants to nullify the statistical results, as happened now with Aikki.

To try to avoid stepping on anyone's confidence, I also always point out that the perceived performance gap is small, and that it has no impact at hobbyist level. In fact, how this gap develops in the near future still remains to be seen. I doubt that a post on a chess.com forum will have a large impact on society as a whole; the strongest female players will develop in spite of my posts, whether or not they happen to read them (which they most probably won't). And if you personally feel trodden by my words, I apologize. On chess.com, all that matters is your rating, and not your gender; you can still go and kick some 1400-rated man's ass.

I think if the number of women chess players increase the mean elo rating of women will approach the mean elo rating of men(The two distributions will be the same.)

There doesn't need to be a linear correlation. The point is that we see a difference between average IQ results between males and females. IQ tests are designed so that you can't train for them, and thus they give you an indication of an innate ability to process the presented problems. Your article (to which I also linked earlier) then effectively shows that there are average differences between some forms of innate cognitive functioning between the sexes. This is sufficient to allow speculation as to these same differences playing a part in chess performance; the fact that male results dominate in both cases is merely circumstantial.

Quantitatively speaking (since you insisted), the IQ tests have an upper limit. They do not provide a tool to inspect differences at the very top. In fact, in that article that upper limit was quite low: 140. Regular Mensa tests go up to 160, above which quantifying an intelligence becomes increasingly unreliable. Therefore, we're not talking about a majority of males at exactly 140 points; we're talking about a majority of males with an IQ of at least 140. The distributions are obviously not Gaussian (at least, not the male distribution), but I think it's safe to say that they are different, and that this difference persists above 140 points as well. But again: the important thing is that there is a difference, since in my view, this invalidates the argument that men and women must have equal innate chess potential.

Actually, it's been going the other way: the gap is widening.

What, you want me to take a video of me changing my son's diaper? Sorry, I need both hands to do that.

@Azukikuru  

Before putting claims like that I would like you to actually read the posts that you are commenting on, since nowhere in my posts I have tried to nullify the statistical results.

But merely providing statistical results gives plain numbers, a math, while their analysis is a completely different thing, becouse we are not operating on plain numbers and pure math here. Also I find your logic in the conclusions that you make severaly flawed. This don't contradict the actual statystical numbers, but the analysis that was made on them. In people behaviours, psychology plays an important factor, and you didn't include any of gender psychological differences in your analysis at all, merely claiming that the most gifted woman would stay in chess just like men do. But they do not. If you read a couple previous posts, some guys here already posted very nice and precise comments on differences in gender psychology, including articles from magazines, which already analysed this difference in behaviour - that due to lack of testosterone women don't get attached or motivated in the game as much men do and really most women don't feel much satisfaction in the game or winning, hence especially really intelligent women are hardly ever attracted to the game becouse they find it boring. Men, unlike women, even being intelligent ones, don't get bored to the game due to satisfaction gained from competition and winning, which unfortunately for women doesn't cause the same effect.

You didn't include any of this psychological analysis in your reasoning, and instead try to operate on pure numbers which is never correct in real world with many other factors involved.

The reason I commentend on this - becouse just same as you, when I see someone wrong on internet (which I find you, sorry to say), I feel an urge to correct them. 

Precisely my point. You yourself stated that you needed 2 hands for this. 
Huh?  Set the cam down silly billy. and then proceed. In any case . Go ahead and continue to believe you are superior. I really don't care . Because I am there already.lolz