Why would women be chanceless against men even in Chess, Snooker and Darts? It does not involve fighting skills, physical prowess.  The facts are clear, there are almost no women among the top players, even in these non-physical sports.

Chess

Judit18bIn Chess there is only one woman in the top 100. Judit Polgar, ranked #32, by far the strongest woman player with a score of 2710, never became woman’s world champion because she chose to only compete in men’s tournaments.  The second rated woman, with a score of 2605 is way below the # 100 ranked man with 2652 points. 

The Women’s World Chess Championship is played to determine the women’s world champion in chess. Like the World Chess Championship, it is administered by FIDE. Unlike most sports, women are able to compete against men in chess, and so some women do not compete for the women’s title. Notably, the world’s top rated female player, Judit Polgar, has never competed for the women’s title      Greatest Women’s World Chess Champion

There are 2300 male Grand Masters and 22 female Grand Masters.

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Maybe this patriarchal discrimination can be repaired by a quota system, by nominating 1500 women grand masters! All of Europe thinks this is a good system to get women into board rooms and political power 0 1 2.3, So why not do this in chess. We are sorry we can not restrain our sarcasm.

Women can not compete against men even in chess, snooker, go and darts. Top 10 women tennis players are chanceless against top 500 male players and can barely compete with male college players. Nevertheless women achieved equal pay for less play in Wimbledon and other top competitions.

Feminism, political correctness and the discredited and debunked blank slate theory interpret all natural, inborn differences as "discrimination" that needs to be corrected by affirmative action. Various countries enacted (or plan to enact) 30% to 50% quotas in parlament and for top executives. Under the guise of counteracting a long debunked "wage gap" such regulations and fear of "discrimination" law suits put women ahead of more qualified male competitors.  And of course there are no female quotas on death row, in prison, among the homeless to equalize the "glass bottom".

The reasons for such gender differences in results clearly seem to be in-born:

  • Women, on average are less competitive: in the EEA only the top 50% of men had offspring, while almost all women procreated. So for men being in the top is absolutely vital to pass on their genes
  • Therefore young males are risk takers to the point of risking their lives and health.
  • Men have larger variance among almost all traits, thus they are over-represented on the top and on the bottom of almost all traits.

Feminism manipulated language and corrupted academic research to achieve such feats. In the US, Title IX, an anti-discrimination law has been used to systematically discriminate against men in sports and to subvert due process in sexual assault allegations.

 

The only women that can compete against male world elite: Polgar J Corus 2008 R 7Chess Grandmasters: 1300 men, 22 women.

The title grandmaster is awarded to strong chess players by the world chess organization FIDE. Apart from World Champion, Grandmaster is the highest title a chess player can attain. Once achieved, the title is held for life. In chess literature it is usually abbreviated to GM (similarly, FM stands for FIDE Master and IM for International Master). The abbreviation IGM for International Grandmaster can also sometimes be found, particularly in older literature.

GM, IM, and FM are open to both men and women. In 1978, Women’s World Champion Nona Gaprindashvili became the first woman to receive the GM title, by a special decision of FIDE. The first woman to qualify for the men’s title through achievement in tournament play was Susan Polgar in 1991. Since about 2000, most of the top 10 women have held the GM title. A separate gender-segregated title, WGM for Woman Grandmaster, is also available. It is awarded to women who attain a level of skill between that of a FIDE Master and an International Master. Wikipedia

There are about 1300 grandmasters in the world. I think just a little over that number by now. They are spread among 75 countries, with Russia having 156, Germany next with 61, and 15 countries having one each: 1  2 

In 2006, 11 women  were true full Grandmasters while 156 held the watered down title FIDE Woman Grandmaster. This one says there are 22 women Grandmasters.

There are currently 22 female players to hold the GM title:[5][6]

There is also a Woman Grandmaster (WGM) title, but the requirements for achieving it are much lower. Still, chess has not regained its former social status among women. As of 2011, no woman has ever been the world champion, and only a handful have made it to the top 500 players. Even so, the strength of women players continues to climb, and by 2005 most of the top 10 women held the Grandmaster title. In September 2005, Susan Polgar’s younger sister GM Judit Polgár of Hungary, then rated #8 in the world by the international chess organization FIDE, became the first woman to play for the World Championship title.[7]

As of 2009, 81 women hold the International Master title:[8]   Female chess players

 

Why are there so few female chess grandmasters?

hree years ago, Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University, claimed that genetic differences between the sexes led to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end". His widely derided led to his dismissal, but is views are by no means uncommon. In the same year, Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn conducted a review of existing studies on sex differences in intelligence and concluded:

"Different proportions of men and women with high IQs… may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds for which a high IQ is required, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize winners and the like."

Of course, this must not be true. So the author cites some non-peer-reviewed research.

Far more men play chess than women and based on that simple fact, you could actually predict the differences we see in chess ability at the highest level. It’s a simple statistical fact that the best performers from a large group are probably going to be better than the best performers from a small one. Even if two groups have the same average skill and, importantly, the same range in skill, the most capable individuals will probably come from the larger group. [..]

The model revealed that the greater proportion of male chess players accounts for a whopping 96% of the difference in ability between the two genders at the highest level of play. If more women took up chess, you’d see that difference close substantially.

Well, it could be that women have less ambition. Less patience. Maybe they are too intelligent to waste half of their life studying theory of chess moves and sit behind boring chess boards.

Human-Stupidity Analysis

This is very typical of Human Stupidity: when clearly defeated, then one weak unproven argument gets propped up and repeated constantly. 100′s of facts get ignored and devalued, one weak argument gets repeated.

If there were more women heavyweight boxers, then there would be more women in the top 100 boxing ranks?

Of course, this can be tested pretty easily. Take some school where all boys and girls play mandatory chess. And see the results. Or do some other tricks to get equal numbers of boys and girls to play chess. After a few years see the results.

Quite likely, in Russia there have been places where women were tested and selected for. And still, they did not find the super-woman that defeats the men.

Of course, even if this argument were true, that there are not enough women playing chess to be in the top echelon:

this still would not justify women quotas in chess championships, math contests, or CEO positions.

Women should NOT get 40% quotas among chess grand masters, nor among CEO

No matter if it is for lack of women with extreme talent, or for lack of women with enough ambition and time. If there are not enough women performing in top level fields, then there is no reason why they should be forced into top positions. It is interesting, that even in Norway, where women by law hold 40% of the board of directors positions, companies and directors know better then to vote token women into the top CEO positions.

 

Women and math contests

Women can not compete at math contests. So they get an extra advantage through some affirmative action.

Share

10 Comments

  1. admin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    "Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains."Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1576. by Bilalic, Merim; Smallbone, Kieran; McLeod, Peter; and Gobet, Fernand.

    Note that this would not change the fact that female quotas for grand masters are not the way to repair the damage. Note also that there are other people that make similar analyses based on estimated iq and math ability, and selecting from the entire population. Just assume that the top chess players are actually a selection of the top male and female talent in chess and math and not randomly selected. Also see the problem of girls in math competitions.

  2. td9red says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    No, we don’t need a quota. Why are women chanceless in chess, snooker, darts b/c most women have no interested in chess, snooker (I don’t even know what snooker is), darts. Note, women have no interest in math, either.

  3. Merlin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    WOW, your logic states that if I was interested enough in physics I’d be the next Bohr. Interest follows talent, not the other way around. If you have talent no institutional barrier will block you doing something.
    Nobody likes things where they suck.

  4. Merlin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    And besides, it is not like the village council where the natives are good at cricket but nobody has heard of it

  5. AB says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I have to agree with td9red here.

    I think it’s more a case of women lacking ambitions and interest in things like chess,snooker,go,darts than it is a case of women lacking ability.

    Women obviously have some ability. Otherwise, how do you explain the success of Judit Polgar? Interestingly, even the incredible Polgar sisters were actually largely a product of their father’s ambitions.

    Women usually aren’t willing to make the necessary sacrifices required to get to the top. For women, things have to be entertaining and fulfilling. It is men who set goals and desperately try to attain those goals even if they are not most pleasing to attempt. Being at the top means much more to a man. Is it genetic? Well, ambitions might well have something to do with male hormones and biochemicals. And for the same reason men are also more likely to think out of the box because men are more passionate and risk-takers.

    But you are absolute right, there is no place for quota here. You have to earn your place with hard work. Feminists should stop whining.

  6. Only 1% Michelin starred restaurants have women chefs: discrimination? or women can’t cook? | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    [...] but in no way proven, that dearth of female practitioners is the cause of lack of female success in chess, snooker, darts. In tennis the reason is probably the lack of athletic prowess in women, which does [...]

  7. AB says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    While I think women can be quite good if they get the right training and work hard on top of it, I also think that women are naturally different in the way they approach a problem or training .

    I read about this one study where even as first graders boys and girls approach problems differently. To do additions and subtraction girls use finger counting while boys tend to retrieve from memory.

  8. Rob King says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Some interesting–and provocative–points! I would say that the chess example and the quota system in managment system are not entirely comparable. Highly competetive (borderline sociopathic?) competetive sports (including chess) is not a social issue. Sociopathic management is. We might want to force less competition in this area? Its at least arguable. Of course it could backfire. The sociopathic males might compete even harder to impress the females!

  9. jixiang says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    I think that the difference is mainly due to personality. For one reason or another (I don’t know if it’s genetic or social conditioning), women tend not to be so keen on spending (or wasting) hours and hours of their time studying something basically useless and irrelevant like chess. And good for them too.
    CEO or politicans are something very different though. I feel that at least politicans should sometimes be women, simply because women deserve representation at the top.

  10. admin says:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Why do women deserve representation at the top if they don’t get there deservedly? Like representation at the fire brigade though they can not save an injured heavy man nor break into a door like men do?

    Maybe also Down syndrome sufferers deserve representation at the top?

    I agree to the first part: women might be wiser not to work that hard. But let society profit from the labor of the guys that work too hard

Leave a Reply