Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

For me I just don't really think of war when it comes to chess. I might acknowledge that "it uses war as a template" occasionally but really never anything much beyond that. I just think of chess as something very competitive; for me the war analogies pretty much end there.

But you're basing this on anecdotes and speculation, just like most people when debating on this issue, right?

"Women, on average, seem to innately realize that chess is, ultimately, a complete waste of time.  Which it is."   Right, as opposed to discussing it on a regular basis. That's much more constructive. 

It is all good, you don't owe me an appology.  Thanks though.  Perception is a weird thing, and typing stuff out is always tricky(getting the point across).  Then, you add the 'on edge' nature of this thread, and things start getting REALLY heated.  When we are 'all hot under the collar', we percieve things differently.

What a crock of hot air!  Good imagination, and creativity though... you'd probably like a game like chess.

This particular conclusion is based on a lifetime of observation, yes.  Since the science here is inconclusive, there isn't any other reasonable way to do it.

It is, actually.  This thread can actually teach you something beyond the constructs of a game.

Don't get all defensive if you're offended by the beta-male remarks; it kind of proves my point that several people jumped right in to protect their egos ;).

I appreciate the honesty :)

It's at least as good as anything you've come up with ;)...

Nothing wrong with being a beta male by the way.

 The reason not as many women play chess as men, is 'basically' for the same reason that more female children play with dolls than with toy guns.

This simple fact(yes it is unarguable) 'pretty much' nullfies the rest of your opinioned, theory of creative, fictitious hot air.

#1 Woman is 68th in the world. #2 and #3 around 300rd.

Fide list shows well over 1000 GM'S. Very few Woman make the list.

Is the fact that a higher percentage of men play chess than woman explain the discrepancy? Compare the percentages of participants to the percentages of top 1000 players.

Does Nigel Short hunt?  Does he honestly think that because he is a male he is going to be a naturally better hunter than a female?

I suspect his Manchester upbringing has negagted any inate advantage he may have hunting.

Chess is a traditionally male game.  Maybe less so TODAY but not less so even one generation ago.

If it has been a male game passed father to son then it is not surprising that there are more men playing it at every level and is seen as a predominately boys game that holds little interest to girls.  That means more coaches, more masters, more grandmasters and more twits who may have never left the city who think they are better hunters.

Where more females participate the number of successful strong masters that are female trends upwards. This success is not only limited in chess but in every professession and is probably true in hunting as well.

Basically without data to the contrary, I think anyone suggesting that prehistoric evolution has any bearing on chess ability is a Nigel. 

Please, someone post research showing that I am wrong.

F***! I posted these numbers last week.  You even agreed that participation was a major factor.  Why are you regressing?  Did you find better data?

Maybe chess is that last mental arena where men feel naturally better than women. 

LIFETIME RECORD:
Classical games: Judit Polgar beat Nigel Short 8 to 3, with 5 draws.
Including rapid/exhibition games: Judit Polgar beat Nigel Short 12 to 3, with 5 draws.
Only rapid/exhibition games: Judit Polgar beat Nigel Short 4 to 0.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?pid=12181&pid2=12190

participation is NOT a factor, your comprehension is non existant. Read this again, particiapation percentage of females may be say 15 to 20 percent. But the number of females rated in the top 1000 is less than 1 percent. Got it? Why not alot closer to the participation levels?

Also, at the highest levels, 1 woman is in the top 250. In all the history of ratings, only 1 woman has EVER been top 10, Judit Polgar, child prodigy. Name 1 woman player before her that ever competed successfully vs men, all the way back to the 1700's? You can't.

The only 5 year old girl I know well enough to speak with certainty on plays with guns and dinosaurs and octonauts, and likes playing Borderlands and shooting everything in sight, preferably with fire weapons ;).  

Guns vs. dolls is nuture, not nature.  Just because there's a Disney Princess machine out there indoctrinating every young girl into believing they are supposed to be pretty and helpless and wait for their prince to arrive and take care of them does not mean this is a female's natural state of mind.  This is the remnants of millenniums of male-dominated society still holding sway.

Anyway, I have always assumed from your avatar/username choice that you realize you are half full of it and over the top...and I am also assuming that here.

I'm sure Nigel is a great hunter, if you give him a blunderbuss and pith helmet, a sifter of Brandy, and a team of natives to show him where to go and to herd the animals into his line of sight...Tally Ho!

Meanwhile, having seen Nigel's and Judit's demeanors over time, give me $5 on Judit to win any kind of "macho" contest between them.

1.  You have only ever spoke with one 5 year old girl?  So, how does EVERYTHING with women's nature work again?
2.  That is not true.  AT ALL(come on man!)
3.  On this particular topic, I am being serious. 

Do you think being rated in the top 1000 happens over night?

As I said, the participation to success (IM,GM) is non-linear but the TREND of participation to success is pretty clear. GOT IT? This, I think is a function of the rating algorithm where there will need to be a level of saturation in participation that will result in more of any group entering the top 1000 (If being in the top 1000, is the minimum criteria for success.)

If I am wrong, and I very well may be.  What again is your hypothesis?

You wrote this:

mdinnerspace

My view, belief, is simple. There are a greater amount of men playing chess than woman, they enjoy it more. Therefor, woman will not be as successful for several reasons. The obvious is numbers.But the main reason is men continue to study and play at the next level, because they are predisposed (right word?) or wired to play chess more so than are woman. There are differences, in general, in some areas of our brains.

Of course, many woman will be as successful as men, they are equally capable, but the numbers will always be less

You still have shown exactly zero data indicating predisposition.  If predisposition exists could you reliably attribute it to 1.8M years of evolutionary biology or is it more likely a socialization of 975 years out of the last 1000? 

Aside from spear throwing and making fire without matches, there are a number of skills that are needed to be successful in chess.  Can you can identify even one that is innate to hunters vice gatherers and cannot be otherwise learned?