Aikki; I agree with your assesment about capability. " But it doesn't mean that they aren't capable - they are just not interested anymore". For years they were taught to obey their biological clock. For years, I had an interest in toy trains and collecting stamps. But my "financial capability" didn't keep up with my desires.
Why are women not as successful as men in chess?
Sort:
Aikki wrote:
@BigKingBud your opinion is flawed in a way that nature does not support your claims about females being softer in character. . Female lions are better hunters as well, while their males are just slackers.
Woman are MUCH less aggressive 'towards the kill' than men are. Humans are not lions???
STEREOTYPING ALERT!! STEREOTYPING ALERT!!
@BigKingBud let's not argue about who is more aggressive, you just made an unbiased stereotypical claim, thus I made a counter one. In reality, both genders are fully capable of being both aggressive or being soft. Men are just physically stronger but please don't confuse it with aggresion. Often it's smaller ones who tend to be more aggressive to compensate. Let's remember Napoleon, a little one with big dreams syndrome:)
@trysts my observations were made on watching tendencies on professional women chess players here in my country. In age under16 and under18 groups in championchips there are often only a couple girls left to compete, that's how many drop out of chess when growing up. The reason is pretty much simple. You can't make out a living out of chess, and for a hobby it requires too much time investment to continue improving after 1900-2000 rating margin. I myself dropped out of professional chess many years ago when I was about 20 - just at a peak of my career when I had freshly received FIDE 2044 elo. The reasoning was simple - answer to yourself: if it is not a job, then why to invest more time to it? for a hobby to play 1st class is more than enough already. I personally believe, more men stay at chess simply becouse they need and like competition. As I have seen, men are often more drawn to any azartic games in overall..Also tryst I agree with you, most strongest women chess players that I know, are married themselves to chess players - I guess men just give women motivation to work on chess that they normally lack:)
Oct 6, 2015
0
#126
Aikki wrote:
@trysts my observations were made on watching tendencies on professional women chess players here in my country. In age under16 and under18 groups in championchips there are often only a couple girls left to compete, that's how many drop out of chess when growing up. The reason is pretty much simple. You can't make out a living out of chess, and for a hobby it requires too much time investment to continue improving after 1900-2000 rating margin. I myself dropped out of professional chess many years ago when I was about 20 - just at a peak of my career when I had freshly received FIDE 2044 elo. The reasoning was simple - answer to yourself: if it is not a job, then why to invest more time to it? for a hobby to play 1st class is more than enough already. I personally believe, more men stay at chess simply becouse they need and like competition. As I have seem, men are often more drawn to any azartic games in overall..
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Though women are very very very competitive in other areas usually;)
trysts wrote:
Aikki wrote:
@trysts my observations were made on watching tendencies on professional women chess players here in my country. In age under16 and under18 groups in championchips there are often only a couple girls left to compete, that's how many drop out of chess when growing up. The reason is pretty much simple. You can't make out a living out of chess, and for a hobby it requires too much time investment to continue improving after 1900-2000 rating margin. I myself dropped out of professional chess many years ago when I was about 20 - just at a peak of my career when I had freshly received FIDE 2044 elo. The reasoning was simple - answer to yourself: if it is not a job, then why to invest more time to it? for a hobby to play 1st class is more than enough already. I personally believe, more men stay at chess simply becouse they need and like competition. As I have seem, men are often more drawn to any azartic games in overall..
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Though women are very very very competitive in other areas usually;)
yes, as I have added in my previous comment after editing
"most strongest women chess players that I know, are married themselves to chess players - I guess men just give women motivation to work on chess that they normally lack:)"
you are also a good example, I think:)
stuzzicadenti wrote:
That's just a bunch of generalizations. As if women were more manipulative than men ... they might not be as direct as men in their approach to life, but labelling the whole gender as "manipulative" is taking it a step too far.
I don't agree that women are not aggressive as men. If anything, I have noticed that men are more direct and straightforward, while women are more manipulative and like playing mind games. So it's puzzling why they don't like chess because it involves those same qualities,
Oct 6, 2015
0
#129
Aikki wrote:
yes, as I have added in my previous comment after editing
"most strongest women chess players that I know, are married themselves to chess players - I guess men just give women motivation to work on chess that they normally lack:)"
you are also a good example, I think:)
You're right I think, because I would have never kept playing chess had it not been for wanting to be more involved with the things he was involved with. I know that I continued to play long after that relationship because I was winning. It's a lot about confidence, I think? Like reinforcing? Or starting to do for yourself:)
Aikki wrote:
@BigKingBud let's not argue about who is more aggressive... In reality, both genders are fully capable of being both aggressive or being soft.
"Aggressive towards the kill" "towards the kill."
Oct 6, 2015
0
#131
Yes, we're all well aware of the statistics concerning men being the most prodigious murderers on the planet. But it is not their "nature" to kill, it is "nurture".
My wife is a chess player too and has been over 1900 FIDE . One of the reasons we get along so well is because we both share a passion for the game .
BigKingBud wrote:
Aikki wrote:
@BigKingBud let's not argue about who is more aggressive... In reality, both genders are fully capable of being both aggressive or being soft.
"Aggressive towards the kill" "towards the kill."
Yes, so? I think mens capability towards being more murderous killers are not pure aggression in itself, but rather lack of it's control. Women show their aggression indirectly, being "silently aggressive" or "psychologically aggressive". So if men are often prone to showing their aggression directly and picking up fights, women are indeed a lot better at intrigues game. Someone earlier accussing women of being more manipulative, was in fact not so far off as it does have at least some truth in it.
Aikki wrote:
@Azukikuru - it is not development that stalls, it is interest in chess that stalls. Most girls come to study chess becouse their parents bring them to train, not becouse they would have any interest in it by themselves. So as soon as they grow up they find something like 12346579789 more interesting and important things to do in their life. So most girls drop out of professional chess as soon as they reach 18-20 years age. They get married, have children and don't give a slightest about chess anymore. But it doesn't mean that they aren't capable - they are just not interested anymore. The few ones who remain to continue to train show not worse results than men per time involved, but this is why statistic shows poor results for woman in overall, if you only count the total number.
Are you saying that those women who lose interest in chess "would be" better at it than those who keep at it, and that this is something that simply doesn't happen with men? That would be the only explanation for the current gender gap (which does exist, unless you wish to debate this). I would have thought that those who are best at the game persist to the upper levels, regardless of gender. Conversely, many people of either gender lose interest when they realize that they're never going to make it to the top. What you say shouldn't be a gender-specific issue: men can also find more interesting things to do with their lives, men can also get married, men can also have a part in having children.
Also, the gender gap is actually widening. This means that not only are more women registered with FIDE ending up with a mediocre rating - as you say above - but that men in similar situations are already there.
Aikki wrote:
BigKingBud wrote:
"Aggressive towards the kill" "towards the kill."
Yes, so? I think mens capability towards being more murderous killers are not pure aggression in itself, but rather lack of it's control.
I said "the kill", not "the murder".
Azukikuru wrote:
Aikki wrote:
@Azukikuru - it is not development that stalls, it is interest in chess that stalls. Most girls come to study chess becouse their parents bring them to train, not becouse they would have any interest in it by themselves. So as soon as they grow up they find something like 12346579789 more interesting and important things to do in their life. So most girls drop out of professional chess as soon as they reach 18-20 years age. They get married, have children and don't give a slightest about chess anymore. But it doesn't mean that they aren't capable - they are just not interested anymore. The few ones who remain to continue to train show not worse results than men per time involved, but this is why statistic shows poor results for woman in overall, if you only count the total number.
Are you saying that those women who lose interest in chess "would be" better at it than those who keep at it, and that this is something that simply doesn't happen with men? That would be the only explanation for the current gender gap (which does exist, unless you wish to debate this). I would have thought that those who are best at the game persist to the upper levels, regardless of gender. Conversely, many people of either gender lose interest when they realize that they're never going to make it to the top. What you say shouldn't be a gender-specific issue: men can also find more interesting things to do with their lives, men can also get married, men can also have a part in having children.
Also, the gender gap is actually widening. This means that not only are more women registered with FIDE ending up with a mediocre rating - as you say above - but that men in similar situations are already there.
Yes, I think you got some point of what I am saying - most promising girls in fact have higher tendency to drop out, becouse they sooner than others realise that playing chess doesn't really give anything meaningful for them. Unles they have "chess oriented" parents like Polgar sisters did, who keep them interested in the game. And even with the Polgars, the most promising sister they said, was the one to stop earlier than others ("becouse it was too easy for her"?).
Being at the top at the game is really not motivating enough for women, unlike for men. I was ranked number 1 or 2 multiple times when I was growing up in my under16, under18 girls ages group and I was number 3, under20 years women group in my country many years ago yet it didn't stop me from stopping playing. Why? Even being ranked no1 in the country for women wouldnt provide me enough money to cover up expenses of playing in tournaments, becouse prizes are so little. Then why to play? How else I am going to provide my living, if I waste my time playing in tournaments? Also, regarding children - having children doesn't bother men to keep on chess, while it is mostly women who have to take care of them, not men, so yes - family is one big reason why so many women stop at chess, regardless of their strength.
trysts wrote:
Azukikuru wrote:
As I said a few pages ago: when puberty hits, female chess development stalls when compared to male development. And of those who go on to study chess more seriously, it is the males who have a higher average rating. It's not a matter of opinion.
Yes it is opinion, Azukikuru. It's speculation you're trying to pass off as fact. I didn't start really playing chess until I started living with a guy who became obsessed with the game. And that was when I was in college. Then I really learned it by just playing my hand-held electronic chess game and playing takebacks all the time. I learned the patterns that beat the chess game and then learned how to win and draw people by playing so much that I learned the patterns. It's just a game of pattern-memory like a lot of games. Aikki is much closer to the truth than your speculations. It's all about interest, and the few people who become the masters of chess are individually unique and work harder than the rest of us;)
I was simply offering an analysis of actual FIDE ratings data and offering the most logical interpretation. I used the following assumptions:
- Hou Yifan and Judit Polgar represent the best female chess players in history and can therefore be considered a (rather generous) representative sample for their gender when compared to the current top ~10 male players (ratings development).
- Players who register a FIDE rating have, on average, similar situations in life pertaining to their abilities and development in chess, regardless of gender (ratings gap).
Aikki is contesting #2, claiming that women who register with FIDE have a greater tendency on average to play below their innate ability than their male counterparts. However, the ratings gap is widening (or rather, it was widening when I made this analysis four years ago, and unless you specifically ask me to do it again with current data, I won't bother with it since nobody really seems interested in actual data), which doesn't seem to support Aikki's claims in a world striving towards gender equality. Then again, this specific issue could be twisted either way depending on your opinion of the state of gender equality in any particular country.
Therefore, it would be most sensible to use data only for the top players in the world, who most likely are using all of their innate ability and available training towards this purpose, since they can actually make a living out of it. One such analysis was made with ratings data from the German Chess Federation, a sizable player pool in a gender-equal country, and the outcome is surprisingly similar: a 300-point difference, two-thirds of which was attributed to participation rates, meaning that a 100-point gap remains unexplained. Again, 100 points.
In my first post, I offered a possible explanation for this using the noncommittal word "probably". It is currently the only available rational and quantitative explanation for the gender gap as far as I can see. If you wish to present a quantitative model wherein cultural influences or other non-biological factors bring about a 100-point performance difference between the genders, I would very much like to see it. Or then, if you wish to disbelieve the 100-point gap found by two independent statistical methods from two different player pools, then please provide a reasoning.
To conclude: 100 points isn't much. It means that the average male player beats the average female player two times out of three (or rather, scores two points in three games). There are so many casual players out there that at our level, this difference is completely invisible. It only appears at the very top. So it would be useless to make any generalizations based on this analysis, other than predictions for the gender of the next World Champion.
Oct 6, 2015
0
#138
Azukikuru wrote:
I was simply offering an analysis of actual FIDE ratings data and offering the most logical interpretation. I used the following assumptions:
Hou Yifan and Judit Polgar represent the best female chess players in history and can therefore be considered a (rather generous) representative sample for their gender when compared to the current top ~10 male players (ratings development). Players who register a FIDE rating have, on average, similar situations in life pertaining to their abilities and development in chess, regardless of gender (ratings gap).Aikki is contesting #2, claiming that women who register with FIDE have a greater tendency on average to play below their innate ability than their male counterparts. However, the ratings gap is widening (or rather, it was widening when I made this analysis four years ago, and unless you specifically ask me to do it again with current data, I won't bother with it since nobody really seems interested in actual data), which doesn't seem to support Aikki's claims in a world striving towards gender equality. Then again, this specific issue could be twisted either way depending on your opinion of the state of gender equality in any particular country.
Therefore, it would be most sensible to use data only for the top players in the world, who most likely are using all of their innate ability and available training towards this purpose, since they can actually make a living out of it. One such analysis was made with ratings data from the German Chess Federation, a sizable player pool in a gender-equal country, and the outcome is surprisingly similar: a 300-point difference, two-thirds of which was attributed to participation rates, meaning that a 100-point gap remains unexplained. Again, 100 points.
In my first post, I offered a possible explanation for this using the noncommittal word "probably". It is currently the only available rational and quantitative explanation for the gender gap as far as I can see. If you wish to present a quantitative model wherein cultural influences or other non-biological factors bring about a 100-point performance difference between the genders, I would very much like to see it. Or then, if you wish to disbelieve the 100-point gap found by two independent statistical methods from two different player pools, then please provide a reasoning.
To conclude: 100 points isn't much. It means that the average male player beats the average female player two times out of three (or rather, scores two points in three games). There are so many casual players out there that at our level, this difference is completely invisible. It only appears at the very top. So it would be useless to make any generalizations based on this analysis, other than predictions for the gender of the next World Champion.
That's very interesting, Azukikuru. But the the problem I have is the implication you make that there is a biological reason, particular to females alone, which explains the gap. I think the gap is explained through environment and individual psychology, and in the realm of statistics, the gap can be explained through participation. Have you ever found that the simple explanation of interest and an overwhelming participation rate favouring males is lacking in plausibility?
Aikki wrote:
Yes, I think you got some point of what I am saying - most promising girls in fact have higher tendency to drop out, becouse they sooner than others realise that playing chess doesn't really give anything meaningful for them. Unles they have "chess oriented" parents like Polgar sisters did, who keep them interested in the game. And even with the Polgars, the most promising sister they said, was the one to stop earlier than others ("becouse it was too easy for her"?).
Being at the top at the game is really not motivating enough for women, unlike for men. I was ranked number 1 or 2 multiple times when I was growing up in my under16, under18 girls ages group and I was number 3, under20 years women group in my country many years ago yet it didn't stop me from stopping playing. Why? Even being ranked no1 in the country for women wouldnt provide me enough money to cover up expenses of playing in tournaments, becouse prizes are so little. Then why to play? How else I am going to provide my living, if I waste my time playing in tournaments? Also, regarding children - having children doesn't bother men to keep on chess, while it is mostly women who have to take care of them, not men, so yes - family is one big reason why so many women stop at chess, regardless of their strength.
Okay, I'm going to have to add another assumption to my list in the previous post: the players with the best innate abilities, regardless of gender on average, will be nurtured and given the proper training to rise to the top. I'm assuming that Hou Yifan and Judit Polgar have the best possible innate abilities, and that their training is merely complementary to that. What this means is that I don't understand why the women with the best innate abilities would drop out of chess, leaving the women with the not-so-good innate abilities to play against the men who have the best innate abilities. What does innate chess ability have to do with making the choice to drop out, unless it is in the opposite direction, i.e. "I'm not good enough so I'll quit"? Why would the best women quit, but not the best men? I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. You're advocating a difference between the genders to cover up another possible difference between the genders.
The thing I'm relying on here, as scientists usually do when using statistics, is that with a great enough number of cases, all individual differences will cancel out regardless of gender, leaving only systematic biases to drive towards possible differences. If there is such a bias, it must be quantifiable, or at the very least, it must make sense. To me, biological differences make more sense as a bias than what you're suggesting, and they have been quantified in another way in those IQ test studies. I have yet to see any quantification for cultural pressures on the female gender.
Azukikuru wrote
To conclude: 100 points isn't much. It means that the average male player beats the average female player two times out of three (or rather, scores two points in three games). There are so many casual players out there that at our level, this difference is completely invisible. It only appears at the very top. So it would be useless to make any generalizations based on this analysis, other than predictions for the gender of the next World Champion.
""
@Azukikuru
Unfortunately it seems you didn' get the point of my comment: I was not denying the 100 rating gap, I merely provided you the reasoning behind it, which is not the lack of natural ability but merely lack of interest in the game which leaves a lot less gifted women playing it. And that is differences in people psychology, I don't know if you count this as a biological difference or not. Also I have seen the statistical graphs you provided from FIDE rating analysis and the only thing that it really shows is that something is clearly wrong with the woman rating graph, becouse it doesn't even form a normal ball curve. It only confirms my point, that most women stop playing chess early in their 20ies at about 2000 rating when they get married.
Chess is just a plonk game for girls.