Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

power_2_the_people wrote:

men and women doesnt think differently. thay have a different experience of life

Exactly! (Almost)

They have different experiences precisely because they view the world in a different light than men.

Experiances follow from the original perception, which differs between the genders.

There's no debate really. Like I posted earlier, there are gender differences in perception, for instance in the ability to discriminate colors, which is based on physiological difference inside the eye. Women's worlds are LITERALLY more colorful, and this is because the way eyes are made.

Next thing people will to argue that the gender differences in bone structure is due to patriarchial oppression or something :)

Ah yes ... those were the days. Nigel should make another statement of the same kind.

Don't snip my quote and present it out of context.  I said the 5 year old girl I can speak with certainty about.

I get evolution.  What no one has demonstrated is that prehistoric hunting has led to chess aptitude.  Is that what your are seriously suggesting?  If that is what you are suggesting, can you explain why as participation increases rating success increases? 

Obviously because they sucked at hunting, women have been legally, institutionally or socially barred from just about everything besides making babies, teaching elementary school, and nursing.  In some cases up until well into the 20th century.

Yes it is true that chess started out as a men's game even though women took a very early interest band formed Women's clubs.  Serious chess arose in gentlemen's clubs and coffee houses where women were not permitted.  As an example, The Marshall Chess Club was founded in 1877 and did not permit women until 1938.  It should be no surprise then that there were no women competing with the early world champions.  They generally avoided playing anyone who was seen as a possible contender even if there were such a woman.   

Chess as a profession is very new.  Prior to the '90's very few men made a living at chess without state sponsorship.  Even at the candidates level up until Fischer, chess was barely a 'second' profession.  That so few women have taken up the profession into their 20's and 30's is not that surprising.   Yes biology likely plays a roll there.  I wouldn't rule out income gap as a factor either.  Roll models, parents, schools, teachers, family income, etc... Almost any potential factor of which there are legion is more credible than a 'hunting' gene.  

What is interesting is that in the last four decades female participation has risen in chess alongside women's explosion in enrollment in post secondary institutions.  Again, a far more likely correlation than hunting.

Are women just not interested in chess?  Maybe.  They seem to enjoy virtually all other forms of competition so if that were the case, chess would be unique.  That participation is of women in increasing leads me to believe that chess is not all that unique.

You have no idea what you are talking about, just admit it.

I'll leave that for others to decide.  Enjoy your PBR and porch pontificating...

Good arguement 6.

Worthy of consideration.

I disagree with some conclusions

others deserve consideration

My main counter is

Few females (as yet) entering the top 200

"I get evolution.  What no one has demonstrated is that prehistoric hunting has led to chess aptitude."

It's not so much that there is a simple link like that, because there simply isn't, of course. The point is that, biological differences that affect one's average abilities at something are conceivable, given that we've seen differences form. So, yes, you can indeed say that we don't have some super simple link here, but on the other hand it would be disingenuous to say that simply suspecting that there are important biological differences between the sexes (that go beyond physical strength), is crazy. Would they affect chess? Well it's conceivable: certain characteristics of women make them more likely to be good elementary school teachers. So a connection to chess is conceivable -- it's an activity that is probably easier/harder depending on a person's characteristics. Actually proving things like that is much harder, but are ideas like these reasonably conceivable? Yeah, I think so. It's also conceivable that societal factors can have a large impact on a person. This is why I don't feel inclined to be a jerk to either side of this debate.

"Are women just not interested in chess?  Maybe.  They seem to enjoy virtually all other forms of competition"

You probably should take some time to justify large claims like that. Because from another angle, it seems like many women also don't spend a lot of time on things like video games, magic the gathering, darts, etc. In fact I don't think either men or women enjoy "virtually all other forms of competition." That would be like saying they're interested in everything.

So to argue against myself:

Coles notes:  Men have better spatial ability but women have better recollection and perform better under stress.

Would spatial recognition be better than memory and stress reaction?  I think it would be more efficient. 

In chess can spatial recognition or manipulation be trained.  I am sure it can be as Lazlo Polgar showed.  Can it be trained quicker than interest fades?  Maybe not always. 

In general, increased participation should see a rise in success.  At the elite levels it is possible that men will continue to generally excel over women.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences#Male_vs._female_brain_functionality

Cognitive tasks

.... For example, researchers have found that three- and four-year-old boys were better at targeting and at mentally rotating figures within a clock face than girls of the same age were. Prepubescent girls, however, excelled at recalling lists of words. These sex differences in cognition correspond to patterns of ability rather than overall intelligence ^...

On average, males excel relative to females at certain spatial tasks. Specifically, males have an advantage in tests that require the mental rotation or manipulation of an object.^[41] They tend to outperform females in mathematical reasoning and navigation. ... ^...

On average, females excel relative to males on tests that measure recollection. They have an advantage on processing speed involving letters,digits and rapid naming tasks.^[42] Females tend to have better object location memory and verbal memory....^[44]

Females have better performance at matching items and precision tasks, such as placing pegs into designated holes. In maze and path completion tasks, males learn the goal route in fewer trials than females, but females remember more of the landmarks presented. This shows that females use landmarks in everyday situations to orient themselves more than males. Females are better at remembering whether objects had switched places or not.^[40]

Studies using the Iowa gambling task, or Iowa Card Task, have examined cognitive reasoning and decision-making in males and females. A study in which participants of various age groups who were asked to perform the Iowa Card Task produced data showing that males and females differ in their decision making processes on the neurological level. The study suggests that decision-making in females may be guided by avoidance of negativity while decision making in males is mainly guided by assessing the long term outcome of a situation. They also found that males outperformed females in the Iowa Card Task, but there was a negative correlation between elevated testosterone levels and performance in the card task which indicates gonadal hormones influence decision-making

0F Course Elubas...

It is a persons belief

there exists no "proof" to prove beliefs

You're the one getting all hot, and bothered.  Then not following ANYTHING you said up.  Sure signs one has given up on there BS.

The development just seen in chess since women's lib doesnt look like the genders have the same potential for it.

If the potentials are identical, the first generation of women chess players that started off after women's lib kicked should be playing just like male players.

They just don't. They aren't ostracized anymore, and they still don't become world champs etc. So only explanaton left is biology.

6... did you mean "spatial ability" and not special ability in the opening statement?

spatial recognition is often shown in IQ testing, which is BS imo..

Men generally test better, but as IQ indicator is bs.

.

What I meant is that women show quite a lot of interest in most competative activities as do men.  Yes, there are different participation levels in every acivity.

Why that is is not always so clear.  The video gaming gender gap may have the closest parallel to chess.

Precisely nr 6. There are gazillions of gender differences like that. It's the most likely explanation of the gender gap in chess, seeing as the social explanation doesnt cut the mustard since women's lib.

BEFORE women's lib you could argue they weren't good at chess becaue they were banned from the tournaments etc. Buf after they got access, this explanation just isnt relevant anymore.

What first generation?  I would suggest that we are still in it as we are barely out of the opening chapters of women's lib and as long as women have a separate title streams that separates women, chess may never be out of it.  The first GM's were the Polgars in 1991.  We're on our third WC since then and only the first WC to be younger than either Susan or Judit.

Some things take time.  The first female lawyer in the United States was called to the bar in 1869.  The first Female Supreme Court Justice was appointed in 1981.

Though, maybe it was biology.

Yes, spatial, not special.  I don't believe I have ever written anything on IQ as it is rubbish.

Useful on chess forums when people can't compare genitalia without being banned and a membership in Mensa.  That is about it though.

"BEFORE women's lib you could argue they weren't good at chess becaue they were banned from the tournaments etc. Buf after they got access, this explanation just isnt relevant anymore."

I don't know, I don't think that's totally fair. Men's and women's lifestyles developed depending on their society, which would of course include laws. For example if a woman was banned from an activity, she wouldn't develop a lifestyle around it, and women wouldn't be raised to do so. This wouldn't just immediately disappear as soon as laws changed, because by that time their lifestyles would have already been developed around other things. And consequently, ideas on how to raise girls, would have already been developed around other things. And it's easy to gravitate towards better known customs -- more comfort and predictability, for one thing.

Eventually things can start changing of course, and they do. But it does take time. And it's probably hard to totally eliminate the residue of the past. There are plenty of women that are totally drawn to the traditional gender roles, and I don't think it's a total coincidence that such roles were what they were pretty much totally forced into back then.

(Not that there's anything wrong with deciding that you want to follow a gender role. But you should believe in that decision with your own judgment, rather than let someone else, or society, decide on that for you. You deserve better than that.)