Women Better Chessplayers than Men?

You don't want that, but if Pogonina is 2750 she will definitely get much more attention than a Gashimov that is 2750, since no woman has ever had such a rating and only a couple of rare exceptions reach 2600. At the moment Polgar alone is higher than 2607. That women do play on a lower level than men in chess just like in tennis doesn't mean that people are wrong if they relish female tournaments.

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?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it does go against the grain of the goal of "equality", but that is par for the course...sometimes your goals are conflicting, and in these cases one has to consider the bigger picture...would you prefer equality?... (and no women reaching very far, and eventually loosing interest in the game, and thus their following evaporates, and along with it additional revenue)...or does it make more sense to segment the matches?...(and motivate the women and seniors etc, and thereby create a submarket with its own followers, and thereby generate addional income). I believe the answer is obvious, without sufficient revenue, chess matches will dry up (and we already seeing this)...and everyone will loose.

No one wants to see the same top players playing against themselves in every tournament.

I'm glad you used the word "guess" there, for there's not a shred of evidence, bar the one unique instance of the Polgars, that supports your "chances are" in the slightest. For all your rhetoric, all you end up doing is assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. 

I quite honestly prefer equality. Sexist disrespect to the people who get so high up (but perhaps are overlooked because they're not in the world championship cycle and not female) is frankly unethical to me. It's totally not worth it. In other words, the ends (and it's unclear if it's really working that much anyway) don't justify the means (disrespect, sexism, etc) in my book.

 You realize that's like saying calling a guy a "little girl" for crying is constructive because "the ends justify the means"; "it'll make men tougher for the future," right?

The idea of giving unfair privileges just to increase the amount of players is pathetically desperate and superfluous to me; did it ever occur to them that they can just promote the damn game? If you show you are unable to make it high enough up, then that should be it; chess rewards the diligent and talented; apparently FIDE rewards you for your gender too.

 So you must not like female tournaments then, as that isn't equal opportunity, but actually superior opportunity to men!

And El Senior, the thing about your example is that it forces women to study a lot; but of course the thing about life is that you choose whether or not to do that. It could very well be that a big reason females don't get to the top is because they don't want to stick with the game. There is no ethical way to do your experiment, as improving is not a matter of days or hours; it can be a matter of years.

And Gil Gandel, Amen. And also his second reason for why there are less female players has ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT, yet he claims it as fact.

Another topic that is debated for no reason.  Aside from Judit Polgar, there is no convincing evidence whatsoever that women have near the chess strength of men.  As someone else stated, look at the Super GMs, not one female on the list.  It's not sexist.  It's just fact.

Debating this is like debating whether or not Fischer was the greatest ever.    Let the arrows fly!

His wife must have been looking over his shoulder... 

Good luck to Anna Zatonskih in the US Championship!  She is the awesomest.

Uh oh paul your wife ran away with something i cant quite make it out but it looks like she has two orbs in her hand....

The property of a species that there are noticeable differences in size, appearance, or ability between the sexes is called sexual dimorphism.  Human beings are only slightly sexually dimorphic, negligibly so compared to many other species.

Making some off-the-cuff comparisons between men and women, and comparing that to the human average, we get numbers like:

Difference in average height between men and women is only a couple of inches and the average human is about 5'6", so about a 5% difference.

World best marathon times are 2:04 for men and 2:15 for women, which is an average difference of zero percent since probably most people could not finish a marathon in a reasonable amount of time anyway.

The best female chess players are in the 2500-2600 range and the best men are roughly 200 points higher.  If the average club player is 1600, that's a difference of about 13%.  Of course, in a match with a club player, there is no real difference between a 2600 and a 2800, either one would dominate.

So, except at world record levels, there is so little difference between men and women that sex is probably not a valid predictor of performance in either athletics or intellectual activities.

Examples of species where there is pronounced sexual dimorphism include gorillas (male noticeably bigger and stronger) and many species of birds, especially hawks (female noticeably bigger and stronger).

two gorillas hanging out, male on the right

two adult falcons, female on the right

two lucky humans enjoying a night out at wendy's.  shave 'em, put 'em in baggy clothes, stand 'em 30' away, and it would be difficult to tell them apart.

In any case, since men and women tend to like each other, we should be nice.

Ok courier Mike I must reply.  The OP's issue is whether women are better than men at chess.  so in a complete departure from the topic you brought up height, weight, marathons, gorillas. hawks, a couple at wendys and yes you did reference chess in an aside.  let me ask you a question. Could Mohammed Ali's daughter Leila Ali give you an a$$ whooping?  I mean she is almost 6' tall and around 200 pounds.  So is she better than the average 6' 200 pound male?  I am curious at your reply.  As a former amateur fighter myself I saw many women get in the ring....with other women and guess what I never saw one man step into the ring to spar with them.  Why?  because that would be boorish, rude behavior and every single man in my club would have beat the ship out of the guy that tried to spar with a girl.  RIGHTLY SO!  One of the issues in this thread is that women should be respected for having their own clubs where they compete with themselves and I agree with that and the guys that want to jump all over that are out of line.  However you and the wimp before you want to take it a step further and remove all diferentiation between the sexes and that is sophistry.

Calling people names on the internet because they disagree with you is trollish and I imagine probably not what you want to be doing.

I agree with you that men and women should be treated differently, hopefully in a good way, but not because there are big differences in their abilities, there aren't.  Most interaction between people is social and has very little to do with how smart/fast/strong they are.

S I G H

The other way to look at that sexual dimorphism is not to say that the best marathon runners of both sexes are so much better than the average that, on average, there is no difference; nor to compare chess players that way, nor boxers, nor weightlifters, etc., etc. What you should be doing is comparing like with like across the two populations - and then, in marathon running and almost every other endeavour, you find that the men at the 100th percentile outperform the women at the 100th percentile; the men at the 90th percentile outperform the women at the 90th; and so on right across the board. Compare club level with club level, county level with county level, international with international, and it's obvious who is kicking whose ass time after time after time. Your world best marathon times, where you dismiss the gender difference as irrelevant, would see the fastest female just about two clear miles behind the male...!

"In any case... we should be nice" is just patronising. Do you think women have no stomach for the truth?

Now that you ask,i say the fair sex could not deal w/ the truth( i stole the line from a movie) As the Famous saying goes....who do you want in the fox hole when the enemy attacks! Your opinions lead to "Oh it really doesn't matter". My truth.....If your cooking that's one thing, playing chess / why that's another matter!......by the way if you check few(if any) females visit chess clubs,groups, take out or buy chess books, play chess on chess. com AND barring the top three/four female g.ms the top males would win 93/4 out of hundred big time games.Being P.C. is one thing,the real world may be another. I like your statement; Though it was kind of deep and used alot of big words, addressing what audience- -- chess,political, philosophical or ones self ?......THe one w/ the knowing smile and buging pants is the "male".

I don't understand this Germanic obsession with female cooking. All the top gourmet chefs are male, after all. It's one thing to prepare a bland meal for the whole family, but completely another to apply creativity and vision to create a culinary masterpiece.

I think this is a serious matter, certainly if chess is to be considered as a spectator sport. And for example to be put forward for the Olympic Games the question of a playing kit should be considered.

>:)

From today's Chess in Translation, Vassily Ivanchuk says:

"And do you like playing chess against women?

I wouldn’t say I do particularly, but I also wouldn’t say I don’t like it. In general, I try not to make an exception out of games against women. In chess, female logic differs little from male logic, which you can see just by analysing games. After all, the strongest female players work with men in one way or another. I don’t know what the female style of play is. Or more precisely, I don’t see any difference when compared to male play. In everyday life I also don’t divide people into men and women. For me, personal qualities, mentality and upbringing are the important things when spending time with people."

Again, it seems like equality is valued... but not practiced [female events]?