Women Better Chessplayers than Men?

Your posting puzzles me.

Did someone propose that she is #1, or that she would have been #1 if she had decided to weigh her life goals differently? I certainly didn't. I am pointing out that any suggestion that there has never been a woman of top-level talent in chess is ignoring a well-known case to the contrary.

I would be curious to know how far she might have gone, but some humans view family as more important than chess. That's not an excuse. It's a decision.

Well, the point I'm trying to make is that people have excuses (or "decisions," either way; they're just essentially equivalent ways of wording the same thing here), and they may well be valid, but that doesn't change the facts. What I said just reflected that point -- it was not a direct reply to those claims specifically, because as you said they weren't made (I apologize, sometimes I don't make my rationale in a post very clear; most of my stuff is just about making an abstract point ).

The reason I made the post was because people infer WAY too much from some posts: if someone posts a fact, don't assume that it implies anything until the person actually makes the implication ("there are more male GMs than females, therefore men are better people"-- again don't assume this implication when you hear the first half!!) -- perhaps the person just felt like reciting a fact; it doesn't have to mean anything.

I apologize if this doesn't apply to you at all -- but it bothers me when people think, and then judge, like that -- it's irrational.

"any suggestion that there has never been a woman of top-level talent in chess is ignoring a well-known case to the contrary."

I agree, but keep in mind she's an incredible outlier and she still didn't make it to world champ, unlike men. (Now, let's see if the first part of my post was read; let's see if anyone takes this as an attack to women... I've got my money on the latter! )

Thanks Elubas for the clarification, I'm no longer puzzled.

What scientific evidence is there that men are better? It is only because there are more men playing chess than women, therefore the statistics show that men are ''better'', but in fact, they are not. This topic has also been discussed in the chess forum before and we've all mentioned the different reasons. Women are more busy around the house/home [with kiddies-stuff and 'house'-stuff than men] and don't have time to sit around playing chess or to go places attending all sorts of chess tournaments ect. Also, the 'stigma' that it was more a 'men' sport than for girls. Girls have the idea that it is a 'boy' game and that is our - [everyone's] - task to get girls more positive about the game than having all sorts of 'issues' about who is better than who. It is about the game and to get people positive about it and not trying to 'prove' who is the best. I haven't read anything about rugby-players or football players putting the females down. So, let us not have it in chess.

Whew! Cause I was afraid I was making it even more confusing!

You didn't get it.

Nobody is saying that men are born better at chess than women, but generally, they are better. The reasons for which they are better are not in the scope of the argument.

Also, if you want scientific proof that men are better than women AT CHESS, look up the last time a woman was in the top 5 players in the world.

And about women being busier and not having time for stupid games, let's apply the same reasoning for men: Oooh, you know men, they have to work from 9 to 5 to feed their families, and then they have a drink at the bar with the guys, probably plays some football too. What man would choose chess rather than football?

See, it's easy to find excuses. :)

"And about women being busier and not having time for stupid games, let's apply the same reasoning for men: Oooh, you know men, they have to work from 9 to 5 to feed their families, and then they have a drink at the bar with the guys, probably plays some football too. What man would choose chess rather than football?"

Yeah. I really wonder why it's so rare to see this male perspective, yet not rare to see the female one when it comes to having it hard. Seriously.

Seems Judit is pretty good : ).  As long as all things are equal what's the problem.

@tarrasch - I know the scope of the argument, but some has already brought in the old boring argument too - of men better than women. The only reason why men are better -at this stage - is that more men are playing chess than women...you've asked yourself why? [not? so do then.] Why not accepting things like it is, even if men are better, so what! if women are better, so what! Let everyone enjoy the game without being a 'thread' to the other. Instead, do some research on how great chess is for children to play chess and write about that instead. - or something more positive.

I think you're wrong on this one.

The fact that there are more men playing chess than women does not justify there being no dominating ( and by that I mean someone who will be remembered after decades, even without bieng WC - like, say, Tarrasch :) ) woman player ever. I mean, men "produce" many extremely strong chess players, let's say one every 10 years. Women couldn't have even one in half a millenium.

I think the causes are social, rather than pure numbers.

It may also be possible that the number of players has a larger impact than I think, but this is still a problem with many sides.

Yeah, but you would think we would find the similar ultra-talented, exceptional girls who would make it all the way to the top -- is it just coincedence that there hasn't been that burst of talent from the females? Obviously not. As Tarrasch said, we can try to speculate the reasons, but to just say that there are less females playing doesn't explain why there wasn't that female fischer who, as soon as she played her first game knew she wanted to dominate the chess world hasn't come along like it has for all the world champions throughout history, as well as those just contending for the world championship. Again, nothing is implied about the gender as a whole, but in chess, they are, as a whole, not as good right now -- they have failed to produce a world champion, defining exceptional chess excellence -- for whatever reasons.

I don't know about you, but I find it extremely hard to, in chess (you better get that part!), claim gender equality when all of the world champs are male -- I wish I could; I can't.

BUT, I don't believe that the reasons are inherently biological!

In fact it may well be because they're too sensible to play chess; we don't know!

@Elubas - these type of 'discussions' [conversations -] always lead to the negative side - which brings you to the old 'argument' of 'why men are better' etc. That is why i see it as negative. Read back, quite early on you will read this:

"Not trying to be sexist, but there is only 1 female in the top 100 active chess players.The other 99 are men. Also, "elite" is classified as 2700+ rating, so there are 38 elite chess players, all 38 of which are male and 0 of which are female."

and that is an indication to what this will lead to. [eventually - as in previous 'discussions'] Funnily enough, you get this type of discussions over and over - and also on all chess sites in the forums. I think we all know by now [sort of - hopefully] the why's to all of this, unless you're a new player or new to chess sites online and the forums etc. I rest my case. [Tracking off now lol]

You know, there's something funny about what you quoted: All it was, all it was, was a statement of fact! He didn't say it meant "men must be better;" it was actually you who did! That's irrational. It is. If he made that implication, I could understand, but just going by what he said minus the implication he didn't claim anything about the gender as a whole; absolutely nothing; therefore it's not negative, just part of the discussion.

It is indeed sad that there are too many either too proud or too irrational (and thus get offended at things that don't actually attack them; or want to feel like heroes to women) to discuss this seriously. It's just too bad. It's the biggest phenomenon in chess, yet it can't be discussed. I don't know why I always try to: everyone is either a knight who defends women irrationally, or someone who criticizes women irrationally; not enough people in between who don't intend to hurt nor kiss up to their feelings. I mean sure, in real life these discussions can get destructive sometimes, but come on people -- you can't even discuss it on a neutral forum?

in my experience women prefer scrabble.

Exactly.

Looking at the question in the pure statistical terms, one can logically come to the conclusion that "men are better than chess than women", I mean chess has never seen a woman WCC, and there are very few women who break into the top 100 top players in the world.

This being said, the "why" behind this observation is most interesting...and there are many reasons to logically explain such an observation.

The Polgar Sisters experiment however, does go a long way in proving that women can be as strong as men in chess, if they follow the path of the men (the Dark Side that is).

The truth is that chess attracts loners, anti-socialists and nerds...and at the early age boys not girls, are encouraged to play the game. Societies norms and value systems have encourage the profile of the chess population we see today...but this in no way should be taken as a negative toward the female sex, especially in terms of intelligence.

For hundreds of years women were looked at as less than equal to men, and treated in that manner. This is 2011, and still there exists unequal pay for the same jobs performed by men and women (even in the Western so called "developed world"), still in some places of the Globe women are not allowed to read or write, or participate in leadership roles, still in many countries women's rights are far different from men's...it is therefore no wonder that it will take women sometime to overcome such handicaps from "the boy clubs" who's purpose it is to "keep them in their place", and to prevent them from true equality.

...it is therefore no wonder that women are behind in a number of roles, cathegories, sports, jobs etc. just for the only reason that they started far later than their male counterparts...and quite puzzleing than men do not realise than they have played a role in "keeping them down". I personally know many girls who like the game, but have confessed to me that they did not continue the game, because of how they were treated in tournaments by men...and therefore turned to something more enjoyable.

Women don't want to be equal to men, they want to be privileged.

Ever saw a woman saying this: Poor guy, carrying all those 5 bags for me...I'd better help him. No, they say: He's a man, he's supposed to be carrying them. Then they get all fluffy and sensible, they couldn't possibly carry bags, that's below their dignity.

Or this: Noo, let me pay, I'm the one who wants to go to the most luxurious restaurants and hotels.

They have a status of being weaker and more sensible and artistic and all that, and they like it. That's why they're worse at chess and science and all that, because they're not even trying to compete against men.

Ever saw a woman saying: Playing in women's only tournaments is sexist, I'm not gonna do it. No. Why? Because they consider themselves inferior to men.

Sexist is a word invented by women so that nobody has the guts to say that men are better at something. Just my 2 cent.

Saying there are more male top players doesn't convince me.  Men draw from a larger pool of players.  The OP is clever in that he uses the very same idea to infer the exact opposite (there are many more poor and mediocre male players, so females are better).

It would be like saying (for those of you in the states) chess players in Texas or New York are better by reason of their geography than players in Washington or Idaho.  Or European players are better due to their geography.  This is so laughable we automatically see other factors such as opportunity, desire, culture.  Why can't the same easily be applied to the case regarding genders?

I'm not saying men and women are equal, it's more or less obvious if all the data were gathered that one gender would edge out the other in certain areas.  But to assume men, due to their gender, have a higher aptitude for chess seems baseless.  Pointing to current top players doesn't convince me.  Pointing to the all male WC is even less convincing.  You act as if females were playing and competing 100 years ago and time and again came up short.