Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

Because historically they were never taught chess.  Why don't you replace it with "Why aren't black people as good at chess?" That should illustrate how sexist/racist this question really is.  Look back in time people.  Idiotic question.  Girls STILL aren't taught chess worldwide.

I'm disgusted this is even a point to be batted around so y'all can feel superior.  Don't make yourself sound uneducated by any answer other than systemic sexism.

Exactly. 

Um, that is TOTALLY ONLY your opinion, and it is actually EXTREMELY ignorant.  Why aren't "black people" as good at chess?  Which "black people"?  You mean African-Americans?  You bundled ALL people of dark color, grouped  them together, and called them "black people".  Then, you tried to sound smart, like you had solved this thread's question.       

How does it impede a woman's born in say 1999 to develop her chess ability that a woman born in say 1799 was prevented from playing chess? Are we looking at time-travelling stuff here, the 1999-woman's spirit travels to 1799 in her dreams and here is affected by the 1799-woman's problems?

How does that work exactly?

*Sighs*

The reason why "women aren't as good as men" in chess is because chess is a battleground for idiot people to "prove" that they are better than other human beings. Women are smarter than men by choosing to refrain much of their participation. 

So there.

Oh that explains why they are spending $265 billion on makeup. It's because they just aren't interested in being better in anything than anybody. 

http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Market-Trends/Global-beauty-market-to-reach-265-billion-in-2017-due-to-an-increase-in-GDP

Amazon... you are uneducated. Chess is taught and has been taught for quite some time in many countries. Woman and men both participate on equal footing, without the stigma and bias seen elsewhere.

Do research before before shouting out your stupidity.

Many men are more successful in chess than almost all women... but some women are more successful in chess than many, many men.  How can that be?

Nah, bubba. There are simply more of us (women) in universities, now-a-days. ^-^

For the same reason many men are more successfull weightlifters almost all women, and that some women can lift more than some men.

Yeah like I said - women like to better themselves. You found another argument against Battlechess's explanation that women simply aren't interested in improving themselves relatively to others. Off course they are.

Right. Except, not.

The notion of studying at university in order to expand one's education isn't quite in the same league as the notion that chess is considered a battleground to prove that one is better than the other.

Women obviously have better things to do than to "prove one's worth"...

...

if you haven't already gotten that my quite sarcastic and nonsensical sexist argument was simply meant to mock the original question, which was equally sexist and unjustified; since women can and do succeed in chess. 

Well, now you're fighting a straw man, because no one ever said women can't or don't succeed in chess. Obviously that would be an absurd.

Nah. Simply making fun of the one that was found in the original assertion.

We don't even know if women "aren't as successful", because there's also evidence that more women, for a multitude of reasons that may or may not relate directly to being a woman, don't care about chess.

My "strawman" sarcasm is merely in kind.

You have not understood the original question.

The question is not "can SOME women succeed in chess". Everyone know they can, and they can because they are smart and train hard and have the right personality for it etc.

The question is: Why do FEWER women than men succeed in chess. And why does the world top elite nearly always seem to be dominated by men?

I don't think it is true at all that women aren't interested in "prooving their worth" as you call it. They just choose different "battlegrounds" for this. Why the genders have different taste in "battlegrounds" is interesting.

You these is BTW very typical of these debates. When the correct answer is obvious, and you are barred from accepting the obvious answer because it's ideological no-go for you, people will always retort to what is called ad-hoc hypotheses, i.e. making stuff up to sort of work yourself around the problem and save your flawed ideology.

So why don't they?

My IQ is 3 points higher than Kasparov's IQ...so, then, I should have studied chess all my life because I would have ended up better than he did if I put the time in?

Chess ability is no more tied to IQ level than any other endeavor.  I am more likely to bake good chocolate chip cookies if my IQ is 140 than if it is 70.  Is baking chocolate chip cookies inextricably tied to IQ, then?

One thing I have noticed over the years is that class A/expert/CM level players actually are more likely to have raging ego problems regarding superior intellect than masters and grandmasters that actually have put the work in and know how much of their skill is perspiration over inspiration.  

You can get to CM level just be being really good at games and calulation in general, and putting a modicum of time in.  After that, it becomes a vocation, not a hobby.

I'm just guessing, but that woman in your posted photo could probably clean your clock at the chessboard.

Not really. Physical limitations play into weightlifting.  Chess has no such inherent limitations.