Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

Hey, come now. Mozart's elder sis, Maria Anna, was pretty excellent too. It's how they were represented in those days.

Just saying. (Sorry, Kaynight. Had to steal from you.)

Danke schön gnädige Frau, Ich glaube " am Ende die Wellen verschlingen Schiffer und Kahn", too bad.

To have involvement in "off topics" to speak about chess  is something I cannot be enough gifted to do, I like to know where I live, otherwise i feel insecure, like being with a woman in her arms and discover it is not. Too old, me.

It's as if male insecurities are the only bad thing a person could have :) Because it's all that seems to get talked about :)

If we ban this, we should probably ban namecallers (such as yourself, if you didn't know what I was getting at :) ) as well, cause they're certainly no better :)

Not an ounce of patience in this one :)

"It wasn't obvious to me in the first place, I remember some friend (around 2300 FIDE) telling me "you see, chess players are very arrogant" and from experience that's true."

Is it so easy to confirm this though? I mean, admittedly you are just going by personal experience, or by what that 2300 said, right? Yet the humbleness of a lot of top players anyway can be mind-blowing... almost annoying even. They'll say they played badly when hardly anyone can detect the slightest flaw in their play. They are often quite open about how much they didn't see, and when they're shown a simple one/two move tactic they miss, a lot of GMs just accept it and are just like "yeah, haha, guess I didn't see that."

But then I do see some players who take a lot of pride in their blitz rating here, and there are some chess writers that come across as a little obnoxious and arrogant.

Perhaps chess breeds both really modest people and really arrogant people? It depends on how you look at it. You can look at how much you know about chess, how much better you are at it than others, or, you can look at how much you don't know about chess. And maybe with chess, getting better at it makes you more aware of what you don't know.

As one achieves greatness, often the humility follows. The more one understands, the less is truly known. Except for the arrogant sob's.

Women have a MUCH harder time 'moving on' from 'slap in the face' style emotional disturbances.  This is actually one of the main strategies taught in chess, not letting your emotions get in the way of your logic. 
Especially in tight games, you have to quinch your emotion quickly, or you'll immediately fall into EVEN a worse position(most times). 

lol this thread is serious it is important to know if LGBT heteros women and bachelors are more successful than Pepette to play GO. We are on a "off topics" chess, which means laugh is forbidden, Gay Paris kolosal katastrophen,  meine Herren und Dame. Im Mittelalter nich lachen ach! petits canaillouses franzousen  sexism!! Promenade petite Madame Pepette  !

LGBT Heteros and Gay rigolos vampires now! abscheulich!

+1

According to the late Dutch grandmaster Donner it is because women lack intuition.

Woman do tend to play worse than men in general. But I'me a girl (My username was going to be chessgirl456 but I forgot the L) And I beat men a lot. I also lose to them too.  

It's funny that so many people, including girls/women, here are willing to state unbashfully that females play worse than men; whether or not that's true is besides my point. When I, as a homosexual male, say that homosexual men play worse than heterosexual men, I'm either "irrational" or "widly extrapolating/misconstruing research". Why is that?

Why not ?

Why so?

"When I, as a homosexual male, say that homosexual men play worse than heterosexual men, I'm either "irrational" or "widly extrapolating/misconstruing research". Why is that?"

Well as for why, it's because people tend to be a lot less rational than they should be; they base their arguments off of their associations, or on some sort of agenda of theirs, often without them realizing it.

As for me, I would judge you for how well you argued for your position. If you have reasons to think what you think, I'm open minded to that. If your reasons are not good, then I'm not likely to share your view. That's all there is to it.

But again I think there is a lot of confusion that comes up because of our use of language, because words such as "women" sometimes refer to an abstract category of a person, but at the same time, it very often is referring to some kind of specific woman. So when people say "women are worse at chess," some might be saying, there are average differences in females (when you actually look at the data of many women/men), but other people take it to mean, picture some woman, she's bad at chess (it's very hard to hear the word "women" and not picture some woman, whoever it may be, and think about her). That's why I really think it is worth it to clarify what you mean: If you mean averages, just say "women are on average better/worse than men at x," rather than not include that and just hope people get what you mean. Yeah, saying on average means saying two extra words. Yup.

So that goes for the case of this title, too. The OP must mean that women are on average not as successful in chess. Because if you compared Judit Polgar to, say, me, now we should be inferring that men are not as successful as women in chess.

I mean granted, he/she did say "in general" in their post, but not in the actual title of the thread.

Haha actually, in my original argument, I used clarifiers as "on average" or "on the whole". I simply left them out here in haste to type. =P

456 ask nicely...

Gay men on average are more concerned with looking pretty, in general, and therefor are not as successful as users that appear with new names. I think I covered every word recently posted. I'll be back for an update. TY and good chess.