This was an excellent article. Thanks to the author for your courage in sharing, and for your thorough research on the topic!
I think that many comments here confirm that the supression or harassment of women is actually a real problem in chess.
The one thing I very strongly hate about this article is that you basically say in the beginning 'Women don't play chess.' Fix it
@MiloPlayzzz : easy to fix. men stop harassing female players. End of fix. ;)
This article is top notch Lichess. It's eye-opening and I plan on showing this to many people. I knew it was different for females in the realm of chess but I had no knowledge to the extent of proof there was that it was all true. It only makes me wish for me female chess players to arise and be great. It is much more than possible.
PS: I will never love Fischer any less for the things he said in that clip. He was being brutally honest.
PS: I will never love Fischer any less for the things he said in that clip. He was being brutally honest.
>Beyond the ‘missing five ounces’ [...] In its rawest form, the brain is no more gendered than the lungs, or the liver
the writer is saying that her opinion is correct because there is only one argument against her opinion
makes sense
>no one suggests that heavier noses make one better at smelling. Why apply the same specious reasoning to the brain?
did anyone proof read this before publication?
next time let a monkey or a dolphin write an article, the size of their brains shouldn't be a reason to discriminate against them
>There's never been a female world champion
>fantasies of male superiority
>fantasies
>Here is how this one story of one woman and her three daughters should make us question everything we know
no reason to keep reading at this point
please keep propaganda out of this site
the writer is saying that her opinion is correct because there is only one argument against her opinion
makes sense
>no one suggests that heavier noses make one better at smelling. Why apply the same specious reasoning to the brain?
did anyone proof read this before publication?
next time let a monkey or a dolphin write an article, the size of their brains shouldn't be a reason to discriminate against them
>There's never been a female world champion
>fantasies of male superiority
>fantasies
>Here is how this one story of one woman and her three daughters should make us question everything we know
no reason to keep reading at this point
please keep propaganda out of this site
The article is poorly researched and factually incorrect. This is a shame as I have no doubt many of the issues she refers to are real. As a man, I would like to help improve the chess community treat women and true equals.
1) Men and women's brains are different neurologically. Denying this does not help us come up with solutions.
2) Boys brains develop many more synaptic connections within a brain hemi-sphere compared to girls, and girls develop many more synaptic connections across brain hemi-spheres, when growing and developing. Many neuroscience experts say this explains the strong tendencies boys have to be better at maths and logic, whereas girls are weaker at maths and logic, but better at other tasks and activities including emotional intelligence areas.
3) Just because Nigel Short is not a neuroscience expert himself does not stop him referring to other experts or that his comments are wrong.
4) Some excellent educational work has been done to lift girls maths and logic abilities to equal boys of the same age, but it takes many hours of additional, structured tasks to achieve what boys achieve "naturally".
5) Given that chess has high components of logic, structured thinking, pattern recognition, and problem-solving, it would make sense that generally boys and men are stronger than women, but also that focused programs and thousands of hours of study can mean women can achieve chess strength equal to men, such as Polgar proves.
I teach a Chess Club at a school where I work, and I welcome girls and work with them the same as boys. Same encouragement, same group work, same opportunities. I have no issue getting beaten by a girl or a woman, I dislike it as much as being defeated by a boy or man, and if they are willing to point out a mistake I made I am appreciative of the learning opportunity.
The Queens Gambit is terrific, but credit should be given to the original book written in the 80's which I read and loved too.
All in all, the article comes over as highly negative and defensive with little understanding of the neurological and biological differences between males and females.
I do strongly object to discrimination of women in chess and everywhere else. These male masters who act like petulant children after losing to a woman are pathetic and should be called to account. Bobby Fischer's comments are mostly appalling and sexist and I condemn them, but his comment that he thought he could be beat any woman with knight odds was probably true in his day. Thinking less of them because of his superior skill is misogynistic and has no place in society.
I condemn the author's experience with old men in her local chess club, that kind of sexual innuendo is appalling from an old man to a young girl, and I believe her that it happened. I don't allow anything like to occur in my Chess Club.
1) Men and women's brains are different neurologically. Denying this does not help us come up with solutions.
2) Boys brains develop many more synaptic connections within a brain hemi-sphere compared to girls, and girls develop many more synaptic connections across brain hemi-spheres, when growing and developing. Many neuroscience experts say this explains the strong tendencies boys have to be better at maths and logic, whereas girls are weaker at maths and logic, but better at other tasks and activities including emotional intelligence areas.
3) Just because Nigel Short is not a neuroscience expert himself does not stop him referring to other experts or that his comments are wrong.
4) Some excellent educational work has been done to lift girls maths and logic abilities to equal boys of the same age, but it takes many hours of additional, structured tasks to achieve what boys achieve "naturally".
5) Given that chess has high components of logic, structured thinking, pattern recognition, and problem-solving, it would make sense that generally boys and men are stronger than women, but also that focused programs and thousands of hours of study can mean women can achieve chess strength equal to men, such as Polgar proves.
I teach a Chess Club at a school where I work, and I welcome girls and work with them the same as boys. Same encouragement, same group work, same opportunities. I have no issue getting beaten by a girl or a woman, I dislike it as much as being defeated by a boy or man, and if they are willing to point out a mistake I made I am appreciative of the learning opportunity.
The Queens Gambit is terrific, but credit should be given to the original book written in the 80's which I read and loved too.
All in all, the article comes over as highly negative and defensive with little understanding of the neurological and biological differences between males and females.
I do strongly object to discrimination of women in chess and everywhere else. These male masters who act like petulant children after losing to a woman are pathetic and should be called to account. Bobby Fischer's comments are mostly appalling and sexist and I condemn them, but his comment that he thought he could be beat any woman with knight odds was probably true in his day. Thinking less of them because of his superior skill is misogynistic and has no place in society.
I condemn the author's experience with old men in her local chess club, that kind of sexual innuendo is appalling from an old man to a young girl, and I believe her that it happened. I don't allow anything like to occur in my Chess Club.
The problem with this article is the same as with the whole gender discussion:
You are arguing the wrong way. In science you start with an observation, look for causes and then you try to cut out other explanations so that only one chain of causality remains. You then try to recreate the observation with the causes and then deduce a theory to explain everything.
With gender discussions and this article it is the other way around.
1. Women and men are identical. They have the same talents and the same needs and the same drive. (You start with the theory)
2. Women are throughout all classes inferior to men, statistically (Theory is in conflict with observation)
3. Therefore women are hold back (THEN!! you deduce the causes for the observation! And because you deduce the cause and not the theory, you then...)
4. ...dismiss all alternatives in causation even if they are way more plausible.
I ask you all, what is more likely?
We live in a time where learning and improving and playing chess (!) is done 99 % at home, online. In contrast to 20 years ago today noone needs a teacher or a club. And still girls and women underperform.
Boys are subject to bullying, abuse and violence just as often as girls and even more often victims to violence. Have you ever told someone in the middle school your hobby is chess?
There is no female world champion in ANY other comparable competition. Not Scrabble not video games not anything.
There is no female jack the ripper.
If you did this the right way:
1. Men tend to extreme behavior.
2. Men are more likely to be drug addicts, psychopaths and chess world champions.
3. They are supressed and rudiculed aswell. There are way less boy empowerment projects.
4. ...
You are arguing the wrong way. In science you start with an observation, look for causes and then you try to cut out other explanations so that only one chain of causality remains. You then try to recreate the observation with the causes and then deduce a theory to explain everything.
With gender discussions and this article it is the other way around.
1. Women and men are identical. They have the same talents and the same needs and the same drive. (You start with the theory)
2. Women are throughout all classes inferior to men, statistically (Theory is in conflict with observation)
3. Therefore women are hold back (THEN!! you deduce the causes for the observation! And because you deduce the cause and not the theory, you then...)
4. ...dismiss all alternatives in causation even if they are way more plausible.
I ask you all, what is more likely?
We live in a time where learning and improving and playing chess (!) is done 99 % at home, online. In contrast to 20 years ago today noone needs a teacher or a club. And still girls and women underperform.
Boys are subject to bullying, abuse and violence just as often as girls and even more often victims to violence. Have you ever told someone in the middle school your hobby is chess?
There is no female world champion in ANY other comparable competition. Not Scrabble not video games not anything.
There is no female jack the ripper.
If you did this the right way:
1. Men tend to extreme behavior.
2. Men are more likely to be drug addicts, psychopaths and chess world champions.
3. They are supressed and rudiculed aswell. There are way less boy empowerment projects.
4. ...
If the writer of this article would like to give me her permission, I would like to translate it in Greek and post it in my as of yet unpublished chess site, upon launching.
@HerrChristianE
"3.Therefore women are hold back "
I'm pretty sure this is not how that argument goes - the statement that women are held back is not a conclusion from rating differences, it comes from other sources and experiences. So it is rather the case that this is an explanation for the data as opposed to a conclusion from the data. If the differences in the higher rating ranges are not a statistic fluke anyway, which I believe the article argues with reference to a paper.
I think when there is discussion about a difference between men and women, people who tend to explain differences as based on nature fall back to nature as an explanation and people who tend to explain differences as based on social effects fall back on that as an explanation.
All the data can tell you is that there is apparently a statistical difference in some rating range ratios. Then you can look at whether this is significant or if it has some methodological explanation and if it is real, then you can look for an explanation. What the data cannot do is give you this explanation as long as it doesn't contain information allowing to differentiate between concurrent explanations. Given that both the idea that these are natural differences and the idea that these are social differences may explain a systematic difference between men and women, data that do not show any other variables than just rating and gender cannot prove it either way.
Ironically, if it is entirely a statistical oddity, it would be an argument against both ideas, although it still wouldn't explain the vastly different rate in participation.
The article points out many problematic situations regarding how women are treated in the chess community, regardless of any numbers.
"3.Therefore women are hold back "
I'm pretty sure this is not how that argument goes - the statement that women are held back is not a conclusion from rating differences, it comes from other sources and experiences. So it is rather the case that this is an explanation for the data as opposed to a conclusion from the data. If the differences in the higher rating ranges are not a statistic fluke anyway, which I believe the article argues with reference to a paper.
I think when there is discussion about a difference between men and women, people who tend to explain differences as based on nature fall back to nature as an explanation and people who tend to explain differences as based on social effects fall back on that as an explanation.
All the data can tell you is that there is apparently a statistical difference in some rating range ratios. Then you can look at whether this is significant or if it has some methodological explanation and if it is real, then you can look for an explanation. What the data cannot do is give you this explanation as long as it doesn't contain information allowing to differentiate between concurrent explanations. Given that both the idea that these are natural differences and the idea that these are social differences may explain a systematic difference between men and women, data that do not show any other variables than just rating and gender cannot prove it either way.
Ironically, if it is entirely a statistical oddity, it would be an argument against both ideas, although it still wouldn't explain the vastly different rate in participation.
The article points out many problematic situations regarding how women are treated in the chess community, regardless of any numbers.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.