Women Better Chessplayers than Men?

Funny how easily you can sum up the thoughts, abilities, and desires of 3+ billion people when you yourself would likely say there are many differences in thought, skill, and preferences between you and your male friends despite the fact that you're all male.

The answer to this is yes actually.

For what it's worth, my two cents.

That attitude towards the differences between men and women is created by society, so naturally most people in society will have roughly the same attitude.

But I'll try to be correct, and I'll rephrase:

There are women who act like the ones I described and I believe that those women don't want equality ( despite saying so), they just want to be privileged. Is this ok?

Women are better to look at across the board than men, so in that sense they are better players.

>:)

I knew something fun would come out of this, please keep it coming!

Well, at least you weren't trying to be a hero, so that's good.

When it comes to chess, or even athletics, two things are clear.  One, women are under-represented at the highest levels.  And, two, the best women are still way better than the general population, male or female.  In other words, the best men and the best women are much closer to each other as groups than they are to the human norm, even though the best men tend to outperform the best women.

Undoubtedly there's alot of sociological and/or biological reasons for this, but I think it's probably due to testosterone that makes the men a little more juiced up physically and more competitive generally.  It would be interesting to know the gender breakdown of the top figures in things like literature and the arts, though.

In any case, I like the two track system chess has, of having women's events and open events, because it seems like alot of women don't want to compete against men, and they should be able to participate without having to do that if they don't want to.

"In any case, I like the two track system chess has, of having women's events and open events, because it seems like alot of women don't want to compete against men, and they should be able to participate without having to do that if they don't want to."

And for the men who don't want to compete against women? Oh yeah, they don't have anything for that; I guess they should have to, unlike women.

It's actually very easy to find sexism in the opposite direction. It's funny: Everyone seems to use "he" when describing an unknown criminal, and nobody notices; but if it was said someone was crying, and it was presumed to be female, that would be noticed, and it would be condemned.

And you know what, that is more sexist than most of this "men are better players stuff," because that stuff is statistical and based on facts, while the stuff I mentioned above is, the dreaded: judging! I would never judge a female player and say she couldn't improve; I can't get into her mind to see her dedication etc, it's just that many people that share her gender wouldn't go through it; that however does not tell anything about her specifically.

In most if not all countries the top women are rated several hundred points behind the men. If someone is unhappy that there are women that play chess they should advocate that women always had to compete with men on equal terms, then no woman could make a living playing chess apart from Judit Polgar, if even she could do it nowadays. How many invitations to top tournaments would the best Norwegian women, rated 500-600 points behind Carlsen, get? And is it really a problem if they have the possibility to play in women's events, as they of course prefer?

 Several hundred?

"And is it really a problem if they have the possibility to play in women's events, as they of course prefer?"

Um, yeah, because it's unfair, and sexist. They get paid for their gender as much as their talent! Lucky them!

This whole liberal: "if we didn't have women's tournaments no woman could make a living with it" makes me sick. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think any woman, or man, deserves to make a living with it unless they play it well enough! [Without women's events] If nobody stepped up to the plate and got to 2700, well then I guess many wouldn't make a living with it... it's not like it's necessary for women to make a living out of chess when there are so many other careers.

Is it too much to ask that one's reward is proportional to their talent, and talent only? [In chess] It works that way for men; not women.

But instead, they are rewarded for struggling to beat the top, with easier tournaments, but men are not. How, in any way, does that promote equality?

Looking at the current rating list there are six women rated higher than 2531, while nine men have a rating of 2772 or higher. But since comparatively few women play chess the top is broader among the men, and in some countries with few chess players it looks like in Norway and Denmark, where the difference between the best men and women seem to be around 500 points.

It's unfair that Spassky got paid much more for losing an exhibition match in 1992 than Kasparov got for all the title matches he won against Karpov. Women don't play chess on the same level as men, and some still like women's events and organise them, unfair or not.

Elubas,

I see your point, but the reason "he" is used so frequently when associated with criminal behaviour is more due to statistics...the majority of criminals are males, just as the majority of pedofiles are white males, just as the majority of Bank Robbers are males, just as the majority of "white collar crimes" are committed by males, just as the majority of rapists are males...these profiles were created by useing historical law enforcement data.

 "He" has a lot to answer for.  He is a bad man.

...ok, so we have reached the point where some of us are questioning the reason/rationale for haveing "women events" in tournaments, calling it sexist and unfair. Well, you are correct, it is sexist and unfair to male participants.

However, one reason for having these segments, and providing rewards for these subgroups is to increase/broaden the interest in chess or any other sport for that matter. As a Marketer/Promoter one wants to reach as wide a market as possible, by having sub-competitions we are actually increasing the total population that can/will be interested in the game...and of course this translates into greater revenue/profit potentional. It is not all about finding out who the best is...there are also other objectives of FIDE and private chess match producers.

Hmm, a thread asking if women are better chessplayers than men, and before we're very many posts in what we're seeing is, rather than an attempt to defend this nonsense, a litany of excuses as to why it's men's fault that they're not. Couldn't have seen that one coming... 

I am very well aware. But that doesn't mean it's for sure a guy. It's pure judging, just as different races are judged, except that in this case it doesn't get attention.

I guess there's nothing I can do about it, but I don't like it: it's done purely for the benefit of one sex over the other, and thus to the detriment of another (males). It makes me question the integrity of these people, more concerned with giving lesser players the attention, which is a big slap in the face to many male GMs, maybe 2600 or so, who could easily be very little known relative to female 25 or 2600s, probably even somewhat less. "You're good, but too bad you're not a girl; either change your sex or be world champ before we give a damn about you." To me it's all about integrity and respect.

You would agree this goes against the common goal of equality correct?

The people that relish female tournaments are definitely not considering things from all points of view.

It just absolutely escapes me how it's considered ok to reward people for their gender. It's pure sexism. If they want the money, then they should have to do what the men have to do! If it turns out that then no women play professional chess, so be it; they only deserve what they earned. How much more reasonable can you get? I sure as hell don't want 2400 female players taking attention off your "average" 2600 GM!

what if the chicks played chess in daisy dukes and push-up bras?  would you be cool with it then?