Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

Didn't you read those two links that I keep posting that show that it's not a participation rate effect? One of them was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I think that the burden of proof is now on the one claiming that the performance gap is due to participation rates despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

I understand that the prospect of a biological explanation for the gap can be aggravating, as it goes against current social norms. However, it is the only explanation with quantitative evidence supporting it. I have not discounted environmental, cultural, psychological, etc. effects; however, such effects cannot be quantified, and I personally find it difficult to imagine a rational mechanism in those realms that would produce the observable gender gap result. You're free to propose one - in fact, I beg you to do so - but please consider refraining from using participation effects as an explanation.

@Azukikuru 

For a fresh view on the IQ topic, you can check here:

https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-scottish-iq-test-scores-by-gender-reveal-the-greater-variability-of-male-intelligence/

Men tend to be more represented not only on the smartest scale, but also on the dumbest scale (those sadly I believe do not play chess, to equal men vs. women score).

Women tend to be just more average. Means less gifted ones, but also less really dumb. Here are more than enough graphs on it available in internet, so check, and consider - FIDE ratings do not represent whole population, only the upper part of it (since the lowest part never makes it to the list or even learns to play).

Yes, I discussed the shape of the curve in that post - it's because this particular set was from a time shortly after FIDE allowed registration for ratings below 2000, meaning that there is a discontinuity at the 2000 mark. In fact, I gave a number of other caveats that deducted from the authority of the result. It was only after that that I made the analysis on a number of data sets from different times, expecting the gap to fluctuate wildly over time, as it would if the curve fit were unreliable; instead, I found that it was increasing steadily. This was a real eye-opener for me. Unfortunately, there was another "women in chess" thread going on at the time, and the discussion there was more heated than in my own thread, so I posted those results there. I can't remember which thread that was.

Anyway, if there is genuine interest, I can redo this analysis. The previous one is now four or five years old. The curve shape should have improved by now, and we should have more data points to see what has been happening to the gap lately. But it's going to take a lot of work, and I foresee that the results are going to be dismissed by people who don't like the implications, and quite frankly, I'm not keen on embarking on a thankless task. Maybe if I have nothing else to do in the next few days...

KingMagikarp wrote:

I am a girl myself, but I don't understand why women in general play worse than men in chess.

Boobies

Exactly my point. If IQ and chess ability both relate to intelligence, then you would expect men at the top levels to be superior players.

   This question is one of the most recurrent ones. I think that there are those who ask and respond who really want a "solution". It's like why are there so many x in a given population and not enough y?

   This is common thinking in diversity of a workforce, for example. Those who like to meddle and force a balance (whether that is good or bad is for another discussion) will want rules and regulations to force people to comply.

   But this is chess. It is simply a game. It is what it is. Anyone...yes, absolutely anyone...has equal access to play. Most people just flat out don't want to play. Women aren't barred from playing. So from a pragmatic perspective, the question is useless.

   If we want to play amateur psychologists and social studies experts...then knock yourselves out. It's as good a way to spin your wheels and whittle away the hours as any.

   The answer being looked at will not change anything. Unless we get nanny state governments involved who will regulate that about 85% of the males who play chess can no longer play...we must raise the female participation rate before more males can play. Afterall, this is the typical government solution to similar problems.

   I'd rather waste my time playing chess. (Mostly...I have other useless things to do, as well.)

No, IQ and chess playing ability doesn't correlate directly, in fact the chess playing ability is a sum of 2 factors (IQ + hard work on chess), and the hard work is the more important factor. Here has been a separate discussion on it in different topic already.

Even Kasparov's IQ after official german testing apparently got 135 - good enough for a gifted, but clearly not even close to internet sensational claims of 190 genius.

Women as a rule, do not have the killer instinct that men have.   Women are not nearly as willing to make sacrifices of the pieces as are men.  It is as if they view their pieces as children, or some such.   And these two characteristics, alone, will not allow women to reach the plateaus of the great chess players.

Larry Summers made this same point 10 years ago and was attacked by the feminazis.  Interesting that we have come full circle now.

Tell that to Judit Polgar how she shouldn't sacrifise:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuEgVLNyxXE

The unfortunate flaw of any such discussion is that people mix up quantity vs. quality. Azukikuru is a perfect example. I.e. having 10 more geniuses and 10 more idiots for male population doesn't say that an average is any different, or that average men player is any better than average women player.

In fact, in my short chess career I encountered a lot more horrible men players than horrible women players, so should I base my statistical analysis on quantity? Of course not, but when you using this obvious flaw of thought for your side then somehow it is ok...

You're right, I didn't realize that you were providing links through text--it is too subtle to see clearly on my screen:) 

Statistical analysis does have a problem with  the "observable", and it certainly fails with taking into account the unique individual and the variables involved with individual uniqueness. No doubt it is interesting, and apparently can evince some predictability or trending, I guess. But I'm always going to have a problem with such a discipline because so much of chess success for instance, relies on confidence. The confidence factor really activates the individual into fulfilling promise and goals. The conclusions you're implying through your statistical analysis can't have anything more than a negative effect on individual confidence. So it just remains a curiosity, in my view:) Is my position understandable to you, Azukikuru? Or is my wording not so clear?

@Trysts, don't worry, confidence rises up automatically with an increase in playing ability, so it's only a matter of having the right coach to direct the process. Not the type who constantly hammers your chess self-confidence of course:) Here are many like this, and due to that some coaches really fail at training women, while they show great results while training men. But I also happen to know some coaches, who only constantly showed good results when training girls, while they somehow failed with training boys since they would not show good results. Interesting, how even the attitude and psychology of the coach can change girls vs. boys training outcome. 

That is interesting, Aikki, and it so much makes sense:)

The Father of the Polgar Sisters, and @Azikikuru, should square off in a arm-wrestling-Death-Match on the meaning and nature of women's performance in Chess.

Then perhaps we will be spared these never ending threads --

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/statistical-analysis-on-gender-difference

killer instinct! sliding bits of wood around on a square board! come on!

   It appears to me that there are those (and this is fine with me) who just can't stand imbalances. Yet, they don't seem to mind that there are more female nurses then men, administrative assistants (formerly known as clerks, typists and secretaries), waitresses, C.E.O.s (well, I may be mistaken there) etc.

   I just wonder why anyone feels a need to push chess on anyone. I tried to interest my daughters in chess when they were young. No one kept them out of chess. I encouraged them. They just didn't care for it.

   I was not the kind of father, as I suspect the Polgar father (Laszio) was. I encouraged and opened the door to many opportunities for my three daughters...but I didn't put my foot at their back and push them through, either.

   I hired a music coach, I even took lessons with them. Turns out, they didn't care to play the piano or organ either. So what? They eventually found their own destiny, not necessarily what I would have preferred. This is good. This is how it should be.

(And yes, perhaps the Polgar sisters were different...maybe they really wanted to learn chess and had a natural talent.)

Where...in...the...he!!...have you been - Mighty Mouse ?

There are more female waitresses? Who would have guessed?

Kind of spoiled the effect of an otherwise good post.