Elizabeth "Beth" Harmon is a fictional American character and the main protagonist in the Walter Tevis novel The Queen's Gambit and the Netflix drama miniseries of the same name. She is not a real chess player. In a interview the actress even say that she dont know how to play chess.
There is something very important that you are avoiding here: IQ distribution. In women it appears to be more balanced, if you take 100 female, they will probably have similar IQ, but if you take 100 male, they will probably very different IQ one from another, some of them will have very low IQ and some of them very high IQ. This conclusions make sense when you take a look at evolution.
Fact- Men also have higher rating on average. And the thing is that there are less women in chess it means only best women are going into chess and for men all type of player are going into chess best average and worse. But men still beat women on average rating. It tell us that if women number increase in chess their average rating is going to go down even more.
@@Egg-wt1pk it is a reality but admitting it would be so controversial so we have to say things like "female feel discriminated because there are more male than female, then they dont want to play it".
@@easypeasy9598 That the problem. We as society giving women excuses in everything. That if they fail in something blame it to sexism, which ultimately means blame it to men. Which is really toxic.
I support women and men having equal opportunity. But I don't support forcing 50% women to 50% men in every field. Some countries under feminist leaders tried to force this and it was a failure. Men and women are inherently different so their life choices will also be. We must accept that even under total equality there will probably be more male engineers, more female nurses, more male chess champs etc.
@@JS-ir7wh In some countries, they are doing a lot to balance these numbers. Encouraging women or men to get into a more female/male dominant fields by making it easier to get into those fields. However, it doesn't seem to do anything. Higher egalitarian values, in general, have been shown to increase differences between men and women.
I agree with what you are saying here. If a woman wants to put in the work and become a good chess player, then by all means, she can. but if there simply aren't very many women who want to play chess and it becomes a male dominated game by personal desire, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see why society in general thinks that its automatically a bad thing that something is dominated by 1 of the 2 genders. It is just the fact of the matter that men and women are better suited to different things, and that's a good thing. Wouldn't it seem stupid if gardening communities started initiatives to involve men more? simply by desire, women want to do gardening more than men do, and there is nothing inherently bad about that.
Eliminating the female-only competitions would be a disaster for female players, as very few of them would achieve titles, win prizes and be able to have a chess career altogether.
I don’t really buy the “societal encouragement” angle for a few reasons. 1) Society is already fairly unaccepting of chess generally. It is seen as a pastime for nerds. Chess clubs are seen as a place where weirdos converge. Many men are told they ought to be pursuing more manly endeavors like physical sports, etc. So lack of acceptance is not a problem unique to one sex. 2) History is replete with examples of male chess players who were the victims of massive slander/intimidation campaigns and still rose to brilliance. Chess was a massive PR interest for the USSR, which it used to prove Soviet intellectual superiority over the West. Threats to their hegemony were relentlessly targeted. Bobby Fischer had the whole weight of the Soviet propaganda apparatus thrown against him and still beat Spassky. Korchnoi defected from the USSR and subsequently was boycotted and harassed by his former country wherever he played. If they can withstand withering propaganda and information warfare from a global superpower, you can ignore a few random internet trolls. 3) There are more publicly-available resources for the average chess player now than at any point in history. Anyone can access volumes of free lessons, puzzles, books, content and competitive opportunities with a simple internet connection.
And? It makes no difference. Because everything was done to male. Chess looked down upon. Is that a problem for men? No. Men can earn. Use that money to set up chess club. Invite other men. Who will leave the job of looking after their house and kids to their mom, wife, sister. Free to roam anywhere. Which leads to - Did they invite women? Were women earning? Did women have free time to fulfill indulge in chess? A big NO. Even in literature, women had to face sezism. Aphra Ben was ridicule by insulting she is literary prosti"""! Imagine the horrible amount of shaming went. So much that they couldn't write their own name. Had to use a male pen name. Now, literature had one advantage. Women could stay anonymous. Thus, shielding them from awful remarks. But in physically present field that was not possible. A woman entering in men's territory is a threat to men's ego. Men will deny women IQ test and then show off how women have lower IQ. That's what happening. In short.
I'm a female chess player. I'm not a great chess player, but I really enjoy it. I only started playing it because I ended up on a psych ward, got a box with 100 games in it, including chess. I gave it a go, decided it was too hard, then discovered that there were a lot of chess players on tne ward. I learned through playing other (mostly male) patients and doing my homework. It took a lot of dedication to get to grips with the game. I remember when I first realised I could remember how each peice moved with out needing a guide to refer to. It also took playing when I practically knew I would lose. I didn't win much on the psych ward. I was in the perfect environment to learn. Surrounded by chess players and plenty of free time for everyone. Most people thankfully don't end up in these environments, and if women are less likely to put the kind of dedication needed in the first place then it would make sense that less women play.
my answer is this... men are competitive... I don't know how to box... I fight a guy, he broke my nose...end of the fight, I smiled. you cannot find that spirit in women. very rare. it's always there for most men. the warrior spirit. I believe men's innate competitive spirit is the key. not only in chess but in any sports.
The differences between men and women are likely the product of evolution. Humans have been around for maybe a few hundred thousand years, and for all but the last two thousand or so years they were hunter-gatherers. I'd imagine trapping a mammoth would have required analytic ability and physical dexterity. With hunting becoming the male role, the males naturally evolved to become more analytic, as well as bigger and more athletic. Granted, these qualified are no longer significant - now when humans need food, they go to the store and buy it - but you can't expect a couple thousand years of civilization to undo the few hundred thousand years of evolution that preceded it.
Warrior spirit .lmao have you ever seen videos of women literally fighting off bears with bare hands to protect their babies. Men just want to desperately call dibs on all competitive and logical qualities as masculine so that women don't get credit for doing the same. They get sidelined as nurturing and giving. It's a game of perspective tbh.
A game that is 100% thinking and your asking why there's not more women in Chess? if women play in the mens league they'll never win, the childcare duties lol what's nonsense the Top 10 Best Juniors in the World are all close getting GM and are 11 to 19 years old all have elo over 2600+
Chess is more appealing to boys thats it. I have a little sister I tried to teach her chess but her friend don't play chess so she forgot about it in a year.
It has nothing to do with women's rights, not in 2021. Look at the percentages u put on the screen earlier, countries with far more discrimination against women like Russia and India have much higher levels of female chess players that much more tolerant Europe or North America. U seemed to say that the answer is women believing in themselves, which is kind of silly, o matter how much I believe I can beat magnus carlsen it's not gonna happen. Men and women are not blank slates, we are different. Women are naturally better at some things than men, things like languages, men are better at other things and chess is one. U completely skipped over the evolutionary argument and it is basically the answer, also iq distribution within the sexes plays big part.
If that is the case, what can be done about it? I've read about neuroplasticity where one can change their brain structure by practicing new habits. Isn't it possible that, in this case, women can train aspects of their brain to match that of men (maybe with spatial awareness training)? The same goes for men training to have the natural talents of women. To use an RPG analogy, wouldn't it be like men have a head start over women in one category but they share the same level cap of potential in said category?
@@cadethumann8605 no its not possible, u are talking about hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and millions when u include our ancestors, women can't simply think themselves into a different brain 🤣🤣
right so ovbiously all the differences you see are all biological and society plays 0 role in anything. Sociology is for SJWS, men go smart woman go cook, arent yall bored of these anti-intellectual takes?
@@briansmusicchannel2998 the difference in ability between the sexes are just general correlation trends. They are not at all causative. The biggest factor that you're missing here is that girls are far far less likely to participate in the sport for a variety of cultural reasons. Culture is ultimately the biggest factor -- it explains, for example, why India and Russia have the most grandmasters, because it is a strong part of the culture there. And discrimination also will be a factor -- listen to the stories of chess players like Anna Cramling, who was hit on by older men plenty of times even when she was a child
You are a very smart person so I won't sugarcoat my comment. 12:45 "We need to arrive at a point where women feel they can achieve anything a man can do". Well, thats exactly what Gary Kasparov said. "Women are weaker fighters". That wasn't an insult. A strong fighter doesn't need the approbation of everything and everyone to fight and win and "feelings" are secondary to him *or her* as a fighter. Thats what he said. In fact, one of the biggest reason why there are more men playing Chess as a whole and more men playing Chess at a High Level and exclusively men at World Championship Level is the same reason why there are waaaay more men being renowned Magicians (for example) : Chess, Magic, etc, requires to *obsess* over painfully repetitive stuff. Hou Yifan said it at 4:29 "Women train less hard comparatively while growing up". And she's exactly right. Men, not only Chess players but men in general, particularly men with a High IQ, often *completely obsess* over stuff and can cut their entire social life living in their small game room or basement eating frozen pizza *for years* : Videogames, RC car/airplane modelling, etc, etc. Women typically don't do that and need social interractions in their day to day life. Women can become Chess Champions *and eventually it will happen* but to achieve that she will need to dump her social life in the ditch from the age of 10 years old or so and totally obsess over Chess for 15 years straight. Because thats what Chess Champions do. And competitive Chess players typically aren't the most adjusted, balanced nor happy people and women typically act very differently (for evolutionary reasons. short answer: Women need a group to survive or have protection / Men can survive alone). So yes, it will happen. A women will become the Chess World Champion eventually and her affect and her life story will be strikingly similar to that of every other Chess Champions before her.
Girls have historically been taught from a young age that obsessing over stuff is bad, and that focussing on ourselves is bad, that we are expected to be social, etc blah blah. In fact that word, obsessing, if replaced by "impassioned" changes the perspective. Your simplistic evaluation of women v men proclivities/ survival is way off, and out of date.
@@marthalea876 Your claims are fallacious and unsubstantiated where his are reasoned and backed up with referenced timestamps on what he is commenting on. In *this* day and age in Western countries, and I don't give a flying fig about the what you believe "historically" women have been taught, women today are taught from a young age they CAN and MUST compete with and against men. It's hilarious that you believe society tells women that focusing on themselves is bad? LOL, the opposite is what is being promoted; that's the entire reason the fashion and make up industries exist...because society encourages them to focus on themselves so that these parasitic industries can keep being fed. Go home, you're drunk.
@@marthalea876 You could get rid of every m*sogynistic comment, that, say, the Botez sisters get today and have them free of them for the rest of their lives. I don't think there would be a big change in their ratings. I don't think that the grinding lifestyle would suddenly look like a good option to them compared to what they have. If women were told that obsessing over things were good, they would just get mad at that gender role instead of the role that's currently "put upon" them. In any case, gender roles are mostly just repeating what women (or men) generally like to aspire towards, just in a rigid, simplified way; it's just the rigidity of it that can get annoying, but rigid frameworks are often needed to understand complex reality by turning it into digestible but slightly arbitrary chunks, although naturally we must understand their limitations as well as their insights. Since men often get benefits by being strong, being strong will be a common topic of conversation around men in general. It doesn't mean that every man has to be strong or that a role is being placed upon them in some forceful way. You yourself call these things "blah blah," so clearly you don't buy it, and many women probably think the same way as you do; given that, what difference would it make if people didn't expect these things of them? Either way you would think those things were "blah blah," so it's not as if you are adopting that position and hence you can't really blame that position for anything or connect it to anything about the matter at hand. For example, you think the idea that obsessing over stuff is bad is "blah blah," and aren't convinced by what you hear, so there must be some feature (unmentioned by you) that is independent from what you hear that makes you choose not to obsess over stuff anyway (if that is what you in fact choose not to do). People might say high achievers are impassioned, and sometimes obsessive. Usually both words will be mentioned often enough, because frankly there are tradeoffs. In some ways it's brilliant what the men (and less commonly, women) do in this context, and in some ways it can be destructive, and for every great achievement there were drawbacks, negative consequences, and tradeoffs. We focus on the beautiful games of Fischer but that doesn't make other quite ugly aspects of his life any less real, and I don't think focusing on his beautiful games says otherwise. It's just that, if you want to learn from Fischer, you gain from looking at his games, rather than his personal life, so looking at his games is the logical choice there. The point is that it's not all rosy and that it's no secret being unfairly kept from anyone. If you tell women that you can be number one without making sacrifices and without being weird in some genuinely unattractive way, you are maybe not lying, since it's not impossible (perhaps with Carlsen being a rare exception as a relatively (though far from entirely) normal guy who got there), but you are telling them something extremely implausible, because of the tradeoffs that come with this in general. It would be nearly lying to tell this to men as well. Men are maybe more likely to deal with the ugly (dark, even) aspects of becoming the best. It's not as if some purely rosy reality of being the best is being kept secret from women; it just factually isn't all rosy. Far from it. There are some really cool things about being the best, but the process of getting there is rather ugly, full of sacrifices, and not guaranteed to be satisfying to the men or women that achieve it, and frankly is sometimes unsatisfying and harmful to people who have achieved it, all things considered. We gather benefits from great achievers not to deny their negative aspects, but in order to be constructive; we aren't thereby denying the existence of the ugly reality of it, or keeping it secret from men or women. We all generally want to be good at things but we must always recognize the tradeoffs and see what's best for us; we should not pretend that such tradeoffs don't exist and call such denial "encouragement."
@@marthalea876 You could get rid of every m*sogynistic comment, that, say, the Botez sisters get today and have them free of them for the rest of their lives. I don't think there would be a big change in their ratings. I don't think that the grinding lifestyle would suddenly look like a good option to them compared to what they have. If women were told that obsessing over things were good, they would just get mad at that role instead of the role that's currently "put upon" them. In any case, roles are mostly just repeating what women (or men) generally like to aspire towards, just in a rigid, simplified way; it's just the rigidity of it that can get annoying, but rigid frameworks are often needed to understand complex reality by turning it into digestible but slightly arbitrary chunks, although naturally we must understand their limitations as well as their insights. Since men often get benefits by being strong, being strong will be a common topic of conversation around men in general. It doesn't mean that every man has to be strong or that a role is being placed upon them in some forceful way. You yourself call these things "blah blah," so clearly you don't buy it, and many women probably think the same way as you do; given that, what difference would it make if people didn't expect these things of them? Either way you would think those things were "blah blah," so it's not as if you are adopting that position and hence you can't really blame that position for anything or connect it to anything about the matter at hand. For example, you think the idea that obsessing over stuff is bad is "blah blah," and aren't convinced by what you hear, so there must be some feature (unmentioned by you) that is independent from what you hear that makes you choose not to obsess over stuff anyway (if that is what you in fact choose not to do). People might say high achievers are impassioned, and sometimes obsessive. Usually both words will be mentioned often enough, because frankly there are tradeoffs. In some ways it's brilliant what the men (and less commonly, women) do in this context, and in some ways it can be destructive, and for every great achievement there were drawbacks, negative consequences, and tradeoffs. We focus on the beautiful games of Fischer but that doesn't make other quite ugly aspects of his life any less real, and I don't think focusing on his beautiful games says otherwise. It's just that, if you want to learn from Fischer, you gain from looking at his games, rather than his personal life, so looking at his games is the logical choice there. The point is that it's not all rosy and that it's no secret being unfairly kept from anyone. If you tell women that you can be number one without making sacrifices and without being weird in some genuinely unattractive way, you are maybe not lying, since it's not impossible (perhaps with Carlsen being a rare exception as a relatively (though far from entirely) normal guy who got there), but you are telling them something extremely implausible, because of the tradeoffs that come with this in general. It would be nearly lying to tell this to men as well. Men are maybe more likely to deal with the ugly (dark, even) aspects of becoming the best. It's not as if some purely rosy reality of being the best is being kept secret from women; it just factually isn't all rosy. Far from it. There are some really cool things about being the best, but the process of getting there is rather ugly, full of sacrifices, and not guaranteed to be satisfying to the men or women that achieve it, and frankly is sometimes unsatisfying and harmful to people who have achieved it, all things considered. We gather benefits from great achievers not to deny their negative aspects, but in order to be constructive; we aren't thereby denying the existence of the ugly reality of it, or keeping it secret from men or women. We all generally want to be good at things but we must always recognize the tradeoffs and see what's best for us; we should not pretend that such tradeoffs don't exist and call such denial "encouragement."
There's a sociological view additionally to this ( personal theory ) men/boys we start our lives engaging in playful activities that regard building mechanics movement awareness meaning the toys involved we grow up with Lego we build sand castles play with cars ... Objects and activities that have a technical and special aspect is an advantage . Essentially we start our lives playing with things that involve speed height structure via cars helicopters castles cranes buildings etc , which in my theory is a leap to switching more easily to calculation depth perception memory and special awareness later on when introduced to chess , it is more like switching from one toy to another , where girls/females are introduced to textures clothes visual stimuli emotional connection going from stuffed toys and dolls to a chess board is learning something completely new . The transition for a young boy to mathematics and calculation is closer to chess then it is for girls . It starts with the toys and activities .
Thank you. I'm a bit disapointed by the other comments. I'm really interested by the question but people seems to be satisfied with stereotypical answers, like it's just another example of the biological differences between men and women when in fact, sociological factors might be far more influencial regarding it. For instance, the video mentions women players being victims to stereotypical threats. Stereotypical threat is a very well documented phenomenon in which stereotypes function as self-fulfilling prophecies. The most well known example is math tests: men generally are better at those (that's the stereotype ; whether it's true or not, everyone "knows" it's true already). But when the examiner even barely reactivate the stereotype (like the person taking the test simply having to put his or her gender on the test), the difference between men and women results increases. Also, the more obvious the stereotypical threat (like "Boys, do the best you can and Girls, do your best but don't be too hard on yourself if you fail, boys are generally better at this"), the bigger the difference.
You are saying that a problem of Women to reach high rankings is that people says to them that they can't do it, now I have a truth for you and all women here, this is literally the difference between males and females, when someone tells to a man that he can't reach something he will tryhard and do his best and he will do it, when someone tells the same to a woman than she begin to says: "Hell, this is mysogenistic, please male government come and protect me" and she leaves, and this is not a critique, it's just a fact, women are not made to compete with men, women and men are beginning to understand this once for all, feminism is based on a lye. The paradoxical aspect of this, is that when a man says to a woman that she can't do something, he is treating her equally to other men, because that's exactly how men treats each other, not all obviously, but it's a generical thing. In the end, I could totally agree to remove female category, but I think that from the origin the female category was built because women can't survive the stress and competition of a male shared environment, and a female only category prevent the game just to become unfun for them.
Just to be clean and clear, when I say women aren't built to compete with men I'm not saying that men are better, I'm just saying that we are built for different things and men are hugely more competitive than women on average, so women generally would enjoy more non-competitive things were their emotional and creative nature can bless the world better.
You don’t deserve that howls moving castle pfp and it’s okay to be a virgin but you don’t have to right comments on girls videos to make you feel better
Does anyone know if Judit Polgar has a photographic memory? Magnus says he can see every game he’s ever played. That doesn’t sound like a normal thing, does it?
No, she and her two sisters were trained from toddlers by their father Laszlo Polgar in an attempt to prove that prodigies are the result of intense training from an early age. Fischer for instance had, and admitted to, a terrible memory.
It's really highlighted for Magnus, but in reality most Super GMs remember most of the classical games they have played. It's not really something specific to Magnus.
@@viharikrishnan5588 Yes, but much later in her teen years. She was already a Grandmaster by then at age 15. In fact, she beat Bobby's own record for the youngest to obtain that title up until that time by a few months.
@@viharikrishnan5588 Sorry, I don't indulge in hypothetical arguments with internet strangers that can't be proven. I was merely stating facts without speculation. Thank you.
Men also have higher rating on average. And the Thing is there are less women in chess it means only the best women are going into chess and for men all type of them are going into chess best and worse. It tell us that if women number increase in chess their average rating will go down even more
Sooo. In basketball there are certain men who are taller and stronger than others but the shorter players still win sometimes. Skill is the deciding factor
@@Alessia_Santeramo *This massive discrepancy exists even though there is no gender bias in the law favouring females.* Whether you like it or not, the welfare system forces you as a man to pay for single women, many of whom, as you know, are degenerates. Without welfare and all kinds of affirmative action promoting women in the workplace, women can't support themselves. The feminist welfare state just distributes the burden of taking care of women to all working men. So you, as a man, have the burden of financially supporting these women without any benefit in return, women who will berate you and call you an incel if you disagree with how stunning and brave they are. Western liberalism forces you as a man to fund the lifestyle of women drinking, sleeping around with a new man every night, popping anti-depressants like candy, and going to the women's march on weekends to whine about how oppressed they are. You're subsidizing all that. Women being free is not free. Someone has to foot the bill. / *Islam says, no. No one gets a free ride. If you want to be taken care of, you have to be in a marriage as an obedient wife. And if you don't want to be an obedient wife, go be a burden on your father, who didn't raise you right. And if you don't want to live under your father's roof, go live in the wilderness or beg on the streets. See how long you last there.* .
@@Alessia_Santeramoas a woman in Asia starting out chess This is extremely imp and valuable. Which no one will have the honesty to make. Thank you for raising these points
Historically, women have been excellent go players. This is because elite Go in Japan was taught by top player's families, and the daughter would naturally become very strong. Twenty years ago, the player with the best score against the world's number 1, Lee Chang Ho, was a woman, Rui Nai Wei.
We see the same question in bridge: why are so few women at the top? In her book, Sabine Auken (a rare female world champion) mentioned some reasons she thought for this disparity (I'm doing this from memory, or how I've remembered her arguments): (*) women aren't raised to be as competitive early on, (*) the best male players don't readily mentor young improving female players, and (*) women aren't as cutthroat to move up the ladder as boys in the pursuit of rankings (in bridge, you switch partners - men are more likely to move up and find better partners; whereas, women stick with their friends even if it hurts their rankings).
I'm not a chess player but I know the reason: Different motivations. men want to evolve the chess women just want to show that can beat the top males in chess It's meaning a lot. Same in the other games and competition where women were inserted.
I think there is something which is overlooked because it is not (yet) fully scientifically proven: Personality Types. There is a fundamental statistical difference in the frequency of Thinking and Introversion in men vs. women. In MBTI, these are INTJ and INTP and there are at least three or for times as many men with that personality as women. This also strongly affects the STEM fields as well, because most of the leading scientists are one of these two types. If you are a woman and have one of these personalities, you are as able as any man in these fields and chess as well. I am missing some data points here (I don't know how to get a lot of chess players to take a test), but I strongly presume you have to be one of these types to even get seriously interested in chess as well. If you take that into account, the mentioned difference in IQ should also vanish, because if you correlate Personality Types and IQ scores, INTP scores highest and INTJ second. These types are simply better mentally equipped to solve IQ tests, regardless if you are male or female. And there is probably another factor which is the autistic spectrum. Not surprisingly, the IN.. types are more or less on the autistic spectrum and consistently, there are more men as women too. But I assume that you have to be a fair bit autistic to be a top chess player because the ability to intensely focus for hours really helps here, but at the cost of social abilities which really doesn't matter that much in chess. So, most of the differences between men and women should simply vanish if you take the personality types into account. Funnily, it also affects the mirror side of personality which are Extroverted Feeling males. No surprise here that INFJ is the rarest type for men and if you look at typical "female" professions not as inferior, but better suited to their dominant personality types you have the same problem with males there. How many males are nursery school teachers?
Personality types is huge man I’m glad you mentioned it .. women that play chess are Also mostly INTJ,sand INTP . I’m an INtJ and I approve this message . There is a very small portion of this type for both men and women but women are also rarer .. you are 100% spot on .. people think that MBtI is crap science and I try to explain how accurate it is how Carl Jung was a genius discovering cognitive functions..I love the fact that you mentioned it ..
@@queensgambit4982 ... and ENTJ/ENTP. If I have to guess from what I am seeing, I'd say Alessia is ENTP. But I'll never know until she tells us. As someone said: "The problem aren't the types, the problem is the test". The cognitive functions and with them the types exist, but many people cannot see their real self and don't give the right answers. The acceptance for MBTI is also very different depending on the type, all the INxx do like it because it explains why they are so different from all the other people.
@@stephanbrunker correct .. I didn’t want to say anything at first , but I have studied the functions in depth and it is real .. at the university of California they hooked up computers to the human brain to track the activity of the different types to study wave brain ls and the validity of Carl Jung’s findings , and it turned out to be accurate .. in types like intjs infj intps and the like , that they were using the entire regions of the brain to solve problems , as a result allowed them to see deeper patterns . For intjs they dubbed it blue zen state , the brain accessed all of its regions to connect different patterns to figure out a problem .. many scholars don’t want it to be true Ana even Jordan Peterson a top clinical psychologists was asked not to ever talk about Carl Jung and his work… and to your point taking the test yield 75 accuracy because people don’t know how to take it because sometimes they want to be something else and don’t understand themselves as well , however you can tell what someone’s type is .. As you gain experience with how the functions work and their placement order of command you will be able to know what their type is without taking the test .. some of the stuff you mentioned that you were in doubt , you are are actually correct , and I also respected you because you didn’t memorize a fact you saw the patterns yourself and arrived at your own conclusions .. as a scientists myself scientific findings agree with you .. Carl Jung is a genius .I’m a complete intj because of him.. People can’t even tell that im introverted , they perceive me as an extrovert ..
@@queensgambit4982 It goes even further ... almost everything is connected to the personality types and their distribution in certain groups and the general population. It explains why there are so few women in chess and it goes as far as it explains politics and success, simply because ES... types make up such a great part of the population and they look after and get influenced from what a lot of people do. Just think of how a video goes viral ... as the number of views increases, the thought is: "i have to see that too, if so many people have seen it, it must be good/real ..." whatever. Since a few years, I am writing those observations in my blog www.intjblog.de . I just stopped translating all the articles some time ago because virtually noone is reading it, but it should work acceptable if you switch the language to "Deutsch" and let AI do the translation for you.
@@stephanbrunker man you are spot on .. I thought I was the only one seeing those connections man and patterns , I’m glad to see that someone out there really gets how deep this is .. the reason why they have nt been able to equalize stem fields is because most women are sensors … sensors learn by rote memory and instructions. They can apply and execute formulas established by others but are weak at creating formulas or new system ,most women struggle to create a system from scratch .. stem fields require creativity and coming up with things beyond known facts.. create something that does nt exist “ engineering .. the N types are the ones that have the ability to do so , that is also why most engineers are N types .. and most N types are men .. yet N types only represent 20-25 percent of the population .. Almost every person i know that plays chess well is An N type .. all the ones with N type reached 2100 plus ratings including myself 2207 peak rating .. yes ES types are the majority 75% .. I can’t believe someone out there saw the same patterns I did .. mBTI has allowed me to see and understand humans from a different lens.. i see and understand why people are diff why they act the way they act and i can predict their behavior based on their type .. Sometimes I shock them by explaining their bahvior or what type of problems they most likely have and I can also advise them on what to do .. MBtI tells you what makes you tick , what gives your energy and what drains you .. if people understood it they would be able to really help develop themselves and position themselves in successful endeavors that compliments their type temperament .. Fortune 500 comp use it , so as google , but they never talk about it and in psychology schools they dismiss it .. I think that they do this on purpose because educating people on it would ruin their social agenda … that is also why Jordan Peterson was told to never talk or credit Carl Jung’s teachings ..
NOT ONLY CHESS ,MATH, ENGINEERING,PHYSICS,MATH OLYMPIAD,AL SPORTS, MIND GAMES, RUBIK CUBES CHAMPIONS, FORMULA 1, INVENTIONS, SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES ....
When our creator made the woman. He made her to be the man’s helper. Not his superior. They were called Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Even. Sorry to upset any of you but that’s the truth of the matter
I Just want to mention that I have no problem with people that are creationists (even though evolution has been proven time and time again). I am just sick and tired of people that are justifying outdated and sexist views against women because of their religion. Men are NOT superior to women, women are NOT second-class citizens and women SHOULD be respected and equally valued in our society. Men are NOT the standard and women are NOT men’s helpers/maids. Women are their own individual beings with their own goals and ambitions and to simply say that women were made to serve men is APPALLING.
@davew4304 Are you not able to see the replies that I made on your misogynistic standpoint? “I don’t see the need to communicate any further”. That is because you don’t have anything to say/type. Just accept it that you CANNOT control or have authority over a woman simply because you were born with XY chromosomes. Women are grown adults that are their own individuals, with their own responsibilities, goals, ambitions and opinions. We are not second. Throw that whole “superiority”complex, that you so strongly believe in when it comes to women, out the window and you’ll see that your life will change drastically for the better once you accept the fact that women have equal grounds/value. Stop blaming your mediocrity on women and simply start bettering yourself as a human being.
@@dagbaramore3640 well, idk, seems like a lot of scientists, philosophers, and theorists endeavor in what is called hypothesis. And it seems like a person capable of arriving at the same conclusion internally, that instruments verify externally, possesses wisdom. that's more or less what new discoveries are, or where they came from. just some thoughts, monsieur amore, thanks for the discourse.
Interests are driven by ability .. the short answer for this is due to cognitive ability distribution .. although the average is the same women IQs tend to cluster in the middle and mens dwell on the extremes ( low - high ) of the bell curve .. what that produces is a result where at the higher levels men dominate because they occupy the higher ranges and there are more of them.. that also applies to all fields not just chess .. as to participation , interests are driven by your abilities , people gravitate towards things that bring them success .. they also lose interest once it doesn’t due to negative emotion .. for the past 50 years women’s participation in chess has increased dramatically yet still the rating gap has not changed and it won’t.. polgar is a statistical anomaly and also had an IQ of 170 which obviously occupies the very upper ranges of cognitive ability when you look at all fields you will see the same pattern across all of them …. Elite ratings for women 2300 to 2600 elite ratings for men … 2600-2900 .. it is a huge diff .. with mostly 2700 .. most elite women are 2400 .. so on ave 300 point diff .. which translates to 85% winning prob for men .. that is a huge gap ..
Idk if this is a western thing, because I'm from asia and here both were equally strong back in uni. The toppers were both male and female, and in our stem industries here there is barely any disparity. Could also be because everyone is pushed into STEM/law and anything else is seen as useless
@@rocket9688 idk which part of asia you do live. But your statement is bogus my friend. I also live in asia. Women get more funds, quotas and supports, Men do not get tiniest amount of those perks nowadays.. Morevover Their CGPA is better in some cases but However, even after that Real talent lies in your brain and instinct..for that with less CGPA Men do better things. Now some crybaby feminist always bring up conspiracy blah blah garbage. But actually it's what it is Men do better in those subjects. Women better at nursing, teaching and crafty stuffs. Because we are different and gender do fkn exist. It has been set by Almighty God
@@darksoul6482 Women don't like arts, crafts and nursing because of God. It's because they were forced into those roles for centuries upon centuries. So it's no surprise when there are less women than men playing chess.
Men uses mostly only left side of brain while women use both side of brain this actually reduced problem solving speed and accuracy and causes them to relate everything to other While men have an objective→do it/solve it/ achieve it simple
I believe, bottom line, it comes down to preferences and interests. Overall, most (not all) women don't give a single flying f*ck about chess. On average, women tend to veer more towards social and care roles dominating beauty sectors and healthcare sectors (nurses, therapists, psychologists, ...) or even teachers (in my experience). Men tend to have more interest in material things and dominate STEM fields. Also think what roles men and women have had to play over centuries and thousands of years. Explains a lot.
@@marthalea876 Not fully true. Having young children of each gender you can quickly see stereotypical preferences in toys. As an example we have both boys and girls toys and the kids at the baby and toddler stage still gravitated toward toys that are stereotypical for their gender.
Looking at the data the most plausible explanation is that men have a small advantage in strategy games, most likely a result of evolution. Men have thought about strategy forever, women are stronger at social game for instance - it is why one of the biggest social constructs (schools), after the obv discrimination has ended, are absolutely a female domain. Womens grades are just better on average and most teachers are women.
Yes it's natural that every gender and every person choses what to do with his/her life... I don't get why we must ENCURAGE women to do (let's say chess or STEM) if they just don't want as much as men do... we should just strive to DON'T DISCURAGE, instead of "ENCURAGE" that I see as forcing. Otherwise why we don't talk about the fact that we must ENCURAGE boys and men to become elementary school theacher, given the fact that too few men are school teacher? Or why we don't talk about the fact that we must ENCURAGE girls to become construction workers given the fact that it is an industry dominated by male workers?
yes... but i think we just have that innate competitive spirit...we hate losing. it is how it is. we die in battles. for me chess is like a boxing. now im more into pro League of Legends games.
Great video, Alessia. I didn't realize there was such a difference in female:male players, these days. You'd think women would do very well... but thinking back, you're right. Every time I've tried to talk a woman into chess, she declines.
@@masterblaster3653 okay.. So can u provide some data of matches where a average GM is destroying top rated women like Hou Yifan, , koneru humpy, judit polgar?
@@beri4138 I don't think that's true... I find that really hard to believe... 102 IQ is not enough to get to that level... I could be wrong, but yeah i think that is very unlikely the case...
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:* _*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison. Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch. Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life. Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy. Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe. Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
I read one theory that talked about how little boys brains develop later than little girls brains, so when the brain is at its most plastic and so able to learn at its best speed the boy is roughly seven or eight years old! This stage in little girls is much earlier, and so whilst parents are happy to let little boys play chess at seven years old they generally less prepared to let five year old girls play. This sounds weird but I saw a documentary criticising the teaching of mathematics to children as young as four years old (as is done in British schools) one Hungarian psychologist got quite annoyed saying at that age many little boys brains were not developed enough to be able to learn properly. Just my two pennies worth.
The same thing can be used as to why few Indians are good at gymnastics or football than other countries. now if you make excuse about funds/ gov you're just making excuse
I think it's really disingenuous, you listed social factors but not biological also about social factors you listed ones that are negative for women while ignoring positive ones. That is not how research is done. Instead of being curious and asking why is there a difference between men and women in chess and researching whole topic, you started with the wrong hypothesis that women are same as man in chess but are being "oppressed" and then just tried to protect and prove your point
@@jackjurphy5020 it's both, yes men are naturally better at chess for evolutionary reasons but when u add the fact that women are not interested in anything like the numbers that men are u have the explanation as to why no women are in the top 100 players in the world
@@jackjurphy5020 I know some men that love ballet and some women that love chess but I agree that men are naturally wired for chess in a way that women are not
About 10.5% of rated FIDE players are women, but less than 2.3% of grandmasters are women. This is about 1/5 as many women that we expect per capita. Aside from relative IQ _distribution,_ there's testosterone. We know that it helps men with spatial relationships, like parking a car. Perhaps that translates to knight jumps, board positions, etc.
I don't want to be demeaning towards chess, I love chess, but I think to play at the highest level you kind need to be a bit socially defective. Women are generally more emotionally intelligent and have an easier time making social connections. Being a weirdo who sits for hours upon hours alone with no social contact staring at chess positions is much more accessible not because of their inherent advantages but because of their inherent disadvantages.
The discrimination and ignorance was outstanding in the past. But they have a pint. It is not about inteligence but about capacity. We DO have different capacities that does not make us better or worse. And the fact that there a less women than men is because men naturally gravitate towarda rational and logical activities. It is not discrimination. The statistic factor is debunked very easily. Because ot would mean there should be a 100% probability that a woman was a ranked top 10 in the world. There are none.
Men naturally "gravitate" towards logical activities. Proceeds to ban women from education/ male dominated fields other than caregiving for 1000 of years.
In almost anything competitive men will also try to psych-out other men, it's often just par for the course so I'm not sure how much of the "putting down" of women by men you should put to "misogyny" vs how much to "that's just part of the game". Even harder, because men and women are different I don't know how much, if any, change in behavior should be encouraged or required to allow for gender differences. For example, it may hurt woman more if a man says something bad in the context of the sport vs another woman or perhaps vice versa and how do you tease all that out to set of good policies? If that's something that needs to be addressed I suspect it's going to take a psychologist or three to figure out.
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:* _*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison. Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch. Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life. Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy. Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe. Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
Spatial awareness is a huge factor, time investment is another. Men have better spatial awareness and men also invest a lot more time into their interests at an early age. I have said for years that female tournaments and female titles should be removed, for once it's gender discrimination to only have women(just like it would be gender discrimination to have a male only tournament in Chess) and the second is that the requirement for titles are lowered for women GM than for regular GM.
If you could put your prejudices and politically correct thinking aside, you would see things more objectively. Women were better than men at some things and not at others, and vice versa. There are hundreds of millions of women federates in chess around the world, many more than Norwegian federates, and yet the world champion is a Norweigan. It is not to detract from women the fact that must be certain hardware, wiring, genetics or hormones matter in performance and results.
I don't think you can ignore the evolutionary argument. I mean it sucks, but we have had very different roles for hundreds of thousands of years. That has to have an effect on the brain.
Why is always the reason men like to use for everything? Most disavantages women face are not due to their biology, but because of centuries of patriarcal cultures.
This is why you will always be my favorite chess player. I am a man and I do not agree with any of those pig headed comments . But I think it is because women was not given the same opportunities as men. To have access to the best teachers and trainers And coaches. Because of the culture of the world believing that women are weaker and lesser , And not as smart as men, which is 100% false.
@@LolLol-ow5tp differences in male vs female brains. males are deductive problem solvers by nature, women are not. males are much more logical thinkers, women are more emotional. women don't have the innate drive to become, conquer or achieve because they are born with their value, men must create their value. while women can become very good, they cannot become world champion in any competitive field with male competition because of biological differences.
I used to play in a "mixed" chess club and we all had fun. Our ladies were playing second german national league and those were fun trips where they guys came along for the fun. I think, the playing difference really solely comes down to how much work someone puts in and their innate skill for the game. Adolescent boys tend to be more obsessive about their hobbies than girls, and as such - in the formative years, they get an edge (tap into more of their potential) out of that simple fact. Some girls at that young age who would have the potential for greatness just might not get into chess but find other activities they prefer for whatever reasons. I doubt it is some "bad climate" for girls in chess. Yes, there are always dickheads - but that hits the boys as much as it hits the girls. Dickheads will be dickheads and it does not matter if they pick on you because of gender or weight or size or the social status of your family or whatever else they notice first. Another (smaller, IMHO) factor might be, that boys get raised more to be competitive than girls. Which could be the driver for their more obsessive attitude towards activities the boys find interesting. But - with the wisdom of age, I am not sure, which gender gets the shorter end of that respective stick, as being overly competitive also means one neglects other aspects of life.
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:* _*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison. Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch. Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life. Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy. Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe. Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
@@ruffianeo3418 *This massive discrepancy exists even though there is no gender bias in the law favouring females.* Whether you like it or not, the welfare system forces you as a man to pay for single women, many of whom, as you know, are degenerates. Without welfare and all kinds of affirmative action promoting women in the workplace, women can't support themselves. The feminist welfare state just distributes the burden of taking care of women to all working men. So you, as a man, have the burden of financially supporting these women without any benefit in return, women who will berate you and call you an incel if you disagree with how stunning and brave they are. Western liberalism forces you as a man to fund the lifestyle of women drinking, sleeping around with a new man every night, popping anti-depressants like candy, and going to the women's march on weekends to whine about how oppressed they are. You're subsidizing all that. Women being free is not free. Someone has to foot the bill. / *Islam says, no. No one gets a free ride. If you want to be taken care of, you have to be in a marriage as an obedient wife. And if you don't want to be an obedient wife, go be a burden on your father, who didn't raise you right. And if you don't want to live under your father's roof, go live in the wilderness or beg on the streets. See how long you last there.* .
You forgot to consider that in chess, men have to compete against other men to achieve the title of world champion. The 'open' side of chess is already highly competitive, and introducing more female players might lead to a decline in opportunities "For Them". However, I believe women can make their mark by excelling in the women's category and proving their have some points and the one that can make that with ease the more points they will have. The argument about the 'hardwired' comment has some basis; traditionally, the male mentality has been associated with a competitive and conquering nature. Overcoming challenges and feeling accomplished are essential aspects of this mindset. Instead of succumbing to weakness or frustration, we use the crowded ladder and tough competition as motivation to strive harder, compete, and kill the opposition, and we enjoy that
If you wood see you are bad, you will fix it and wont be bad anymore, but you don’t. Fisher and others are better, so they can see that you are bad. Basically hard to see their own shortcomings. But you can check the participation percentage, which side gets larger in comparison is the side that’s doing better and keeps with it.
women for some reason simply hate chess , my mother runs away whenever i tried to explain chess rules to her , the one time i made her play ( which was 8 years ago ) it , she was super triggered that pawns cant move when there is a piece blocking them , and flipped the board . my sister is not fond of chess either . i have never seen a women interested in math and physics either .
Honestly i think the reason why there’s less women in chess than men is because of stereotypes surrounding the game. Chess, being already so male-dominated throughout history, is typically seen as a “mens game”, so many women are hesitant to enter the world of chess. This can be solved over time hopefully through more leading female chess players who can act as role models for young girls and combat these stereotypes. Also i don’t think it’s fair to generalise a whole gender based on the few females you know who aren’t interested in the game. There are indeed many girls with a love for things such as chess, science, maths and physics (such as myself), and as a female gen z-er, I am hopeful that the trend of more girls becoming interested in such areas will continue.
@@aliciamcfarlane1002 Unfortunately no There may be girls like you who love math and chess. but most girls are fond of ornamental style clothes etc. The problem here is not that chess is a game that is under the pressure of "male domination" (which is not such a game anyway), but that girls do not like math, chess, etc. calculations. They say why should I waste my time with this, the problem is girls are reluctant
My 10 years old son plays many scholar chess tournaments in Spain. What is very sad to see is that typically there are only 5-8 girls in the best cases among the 50-75 total number of children playing. Why is that? At the age of 10 or 12 y.o. I don't see any misogynistic behaviour (fortunately), and least among the children (don't know about their parents, though). I just think the rather low number of girls is because girls that age usually are not interested in playing chess, or they are just taught to not be interested in chess. We don't have to encourage WOMEN to play chess. We must encourage GIRLS to start playing chess whne they are 5-6 y.o. if we want to reduce the participation gap between males and females. But this is just my opinion.
Judit Polgar was always the outstanding talent. At just 12, she was already ranked number 55 in the world, and in 1991, at age 15, she became the youngest grandmaster up to that point in history. During two decades at the highest level, she recorded wins against almost all the leading players of her generation, and famously changed the opinion of Kasparov. In 1989, Kasparov told Playboy magazine, "Chess does not fit women properly. It’s a fight, you know? Women are weaker fighters." But by the end of Polgar’s career he had revised that view, writing that based upon her games, "if to play like a girl meant anything in chess, it would mean relentless aggression."
Well done. An interesting subject. At 13.15 you bring up that the language that people, men use needs to be altered. This commonly happens when women enter male spheres. There are cries of misogyny and maltreatment based on harsh or insulting language. What you are really asking for, without realizing it, is for men to alter their behavior to accommodate the women. Rather the women should just deal with it. Men, in competitive environments, are frequently rude, harsh, insulting, and do much worse to each other. It can range from friendly jibes to being cruel. We say mean things to each other. Sometimes to improve each other, or to insult and beat our chest. If you want equality in a competitive sphere, you are gonna get it. You can't expect a special accommodation of civility and join our gang.
Well only 37 women are GM so participation in the top is not enough compared to the men where there is over 1600 GM for men I’m not saying women aren’t good at chess it’s not enough competition for women to compete against the men I agree with you get rid of the women section and have it open for better competition it can only improve this beautiful game
I agree! From an evolutionary standpoint it makes total sense" Men were prominently the Hunters warriors and Journeyman so mapping" clutch memorization" stratigic problem solving as well as mimicry and adaptability all would be as crucial to them as our obvious differences in strength and aggression! But like you said people are willing to comb over every excuse imaginable to not accept what is literally staring us in the Face!
Male variability is the most likely reason. Its a theory Darwin first described where on a bell curve men are more represented at both the low end and the high end of the spectrum.
Women just don't play chess. There's no difference in men playing or women playing. If you saw 50% of the players women because that's how many entered, women would win much more . There will be a woman chess world champion someday
Right off the bat I think a huge factor in the ELO system is that top players are not required to risk their rating by playing lower rated players. But why aren't there more Jill Hunting Rainwomen who can see everything ten moves in advance? I think most of those kind of people are freaks who were born that way. Most people no matter how hard they try will never be that way.
The first thing which comes to my mind is testosterone levels might affect chess performance. It appears the opposite is true -- that playing chess induces an increase in testosterone. So this is a factor which should be considered. See, for example: "Challenging the Top Player: A Preliminary Study on Testosterone Response to An Official Chess Tournament With Applications to Esports Medicine" But certainly social pressure play a large role. I observed myself as a child in the US that the girls started to perform relatively worse at math starting in 4th or 5th grade, perhaps due to social pressure, which I found sad.
Factor 1: but you usually do somethjg that you are good at. I play chess cause eventhough i may be bad compared to other players online, i have beaten everybody i ever have played non online. The same in online chess. It was fun at low elo where i won untill i reached a rating where i lost more than i won.
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:* _*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison. Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch. Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life. Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy. Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe. Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
@@CaitSith87 *This massive discrepancy exists even though there is no gender bias in the law favouring females.* Whether you like it or not, the welfare system forces you as a man to pay for single women, many of whom, as you know, are degenerates. Without welfare and all kinds of affirmative action promoting women in the workplace, women can't support themselves. The feminist welfare state just distributes the burden of taking care of women to all working men. So you, as a man, have the burden of financially supporting these women without any benefit in return, women who will berate you and call you an incel if you disagree with how stunning and brave they are. Western liberalism forces you as a man to fund the lifestyle of women drinking, sleeping around with a new man every night, popping anti-depressants like candy, and going to the women's march on weekends to whine about how oppressed they are. You're subsidizing all that. Women being free is not free. Someone has to foot the bill. / *Islam says, no. No one gets a free ride. If you want to be taken care of, you have to be in a marriage as an obedient wife. And if you don't want to be an obedient wife, go be a burden on your father, who didn't raise you right. And if you don't want to live under your father's roof, go live in the wilderness or beg on the streets. See how long you last there.* .
You want to settle it? Eliminate woman's and men's chess and just and just make it chess, both sexes in the same cometitions. The results will prove it one way or the other. All refutations to this idea are just butthurt cope.
I don't think that eliminating misogynistic comments or thinking is the panacea here. We've had a fairly relentless "you go girl" message in the pop culture since the 80s at least. Both men and women are going to be told sometimes that they're losers, they'll never amount to anything, they suck at chess. It's the ones who go ahead and saddle up anyway who will make it.
Even if 10% of chess players were men and 90% were women, men would still dominate. Statistics play a very small roll, if anything the numbers we see are a consequence, not a cause. While it is true women go through bullying or other forms of social obstacles in chess, we need to recognise that our roles given by mother nature are very different. There is a killer instinct that men posses that help them perform so well in competitions, while women are compassionate and allow them to support people and nurture them. There is nothing wrong with women not being at the top of chess, in the same way there is nothing wrong with men not pursuing nursing or teaching.
If someone tells you that their "cousin" won a chess championship, you would be justified to assume they were a man, just as is someone told you that their cousin lost a finger on a bet because they thought they could stop a motorcycle's wheel with their hand, you would also be justified to assume they were a man too. We got most of the geniuses, but also most of the idiots.
ciao, se volessi trovare qualche informazione di statistica in piu, nella rivista Torre e Cavallo di maggio 2020 avevo pubblicato un articolo. Se ti interessa mi piacerebbe avere un feedback 👍🏻
My opinion is: they (majority of women) just don't need it and don't want it. I don't think kids are excuse here. You probably reach top level in chess before you have kids. Social effects such as "this game is not for women" and "women can't perform as men in chess" still apply though, but that can't much serve as excuse either. Open chess is already gender equal. No one cares if you are man or woman, just prove your skills on the board against other strong opponents.
Chess seems to be a very competitive sport. Are a lot of women interested to be so competitive ? I follow 3 women and 3 men in chess and it’s ok to me 🤷♂️
Elizabeth "Beth" Harmon is a fictional American character and the main protagonist in the Walter Tevis novel The Queen's Gambit and the Netflix drama miniseries of the same name. She is not a real chess player. In a interview the actress even say that she dont know how to play chess.
There is something very important that you are avoiding here: IQ distribution. In women it appears to be more balanced, if you take 100 female, they will probably have similar IQ, but if you take 100 male, they will probably very different IQ one from another, some of them will have very low IQ and some of them very high IQ. This conclusions make sense when you take a look at evolution.
Fact- Men also have higher rating on average. And the thing is that there are less women in chess it means only best women are going into chess and for men all type of player are going into chess best average and worse. But men still beat women on average rating. It tell us that if women number increase in chess their average rating is going to go down even more.
@@Egg-wt1pk it is a reality but admitting it would be so controversial so we have to say things like "female feel discriminated because there are more male than female, then they dont want to play it".
@@easypeasy9598 That the problem. We as society giving women excuses in everything. That if they fail in something blame it to sexism, which ultimately means blame it to men. Which is really toxic.
You are 100% correct …
Most men are average iq, so it's not that big of a difference. It's not like men are either a genius or a dumbass, most are inbetween.
I support women and men having equal opportunity. But I don't support forcing 50% women to 50% men in every field. Some countries under feminist leaders tried to force this and it was a failure. Men and women are inherently different so their life choices will also be. We must accept that even under total equality there will probably be more male engineers, more female nurses, more male chess champs etc.
uh.. says you. Tell us more about the countries with feminist leaders that tried to support 50% in every field.
Hey stop that, don’t use logic in a conversation.
@@JS-ir7wh In some countries, they are doing a lot to balance these numbers. Encouraging women or men to get into a more female/male dominant fields by making it easier to get into those fields. However, it doesn't seem to do anything. Higher egalitarian values, in general, have been shown to increase differences between men and women.
@@peterpeterson3385 He said some countries have tried to FORCE 50-50 in every field. Force.
I agree with what you are saying here. If a woman wants to put in the work and become a good chess player, then by all means, she can. but if there simply aren't very many women who want to play chess and it becomes a male dominated game by personal desire, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see why society in general thinks that its automatically a bad thing that something is dominated by 1 of the 2 genders. It is just the fact of the matter that men and women are better suited to different things, and that's a good thing. Wouldn't it seem stupid if gardening communities started initiatives to involve men more? simply by desire, women want to do gardening more than men do, and there is nothing inherently bad about that.
Eliminating the female-only competitions would be a disaster for female players, as very few of them would achieve titles, win prizes and be able to have a chess career altogether.
thanks for admitting womens sports is a participation trophy sport
@@Armed-Forever Not at all! it's competitive sport! As every competition should be, it's made to let equal people compete each other.
@@BICIeCOMPUTERconGabriele yes and womens sports only exists so that a winner can be a person with a vag
@@BICIeCOMPUTERconGabrieledoes that mean women are born weaker in chess than men🤔🤔🤔
@@BICIeCOMPUTERconGabriele except its not equal because women can't compete on the same level as men? ( name any sport where women out perform men ?)
I don’t really buy the “societal encouragement” angle for a few reasons.
1) Society is already fairly unaccepting of chess generally. It is seen as a pastime for nerds. Chess clubs are seen as a place where weirdos converge. Many men are told they ought to be pursuing more manly endeavors like physical sports, etc. So lack of acceptance is not a problem unique to one sex.
2) History is replete with examples of male chess players who were the victims of massive slander/intimidation campaigns and still rose to brilliance.
Chess was a massive PR interest for the USSR, which it used to prove Soviet intellectual superiority over the West. Threats to their hegemony were relentlessly targeted.
Bobby Fischer had the whole weight of the Soviet propaganda apparatus thrown against him and still beat Spassky. Korchnoi defected from the USSR and subsequently was boycotted and harassed by his former country wherever he played.
If they can withstand withering propaganda and information warfare from a global superpower, you can ignore a few random internet trolls.
3) There are more publicly-available resources for the average chess player now than at any point in history. Anyone can access volumes of free lessons, puzzles, books, content and competitive opportunities with a simple internet connection.
💯
And? It makes no difference. Because everything was done to male.
Chess looked down upon. Is that a problem for men? No.
Men can earn. Use that money to set up chess club. Invite other men. Who will leave the job of looking after their house and kids to their mom, wife, sister. Free to roam anywhere.
Which leads to - Did they invite women? Were women earning? Did women have free time to fulfill indulge in chess?
A big NO.
Even in literature, women had to face sezism. Aphra Ben was ridicule by insulting she is literary prosti"""! Imagine the horrible amount of shaming went.
So much that they couldn't write their own name. Had to use a male pen name.
Now, literature had one advantage. Women could stay anonymous. Thus, shielding them from awful remarks.
But in physically present field that was not possible. A woman entering in men's territory is a threat to men's ego.
Men will deny women IQ test and then show off how women have lower IQ. That's what happening. In short.
I'm a female chess player. I'm not a great chess player, but I really enjoy it.
I only started playing it because I ended up on a psych ward, got a box with 100 games in it, including chess.
I gave it a go, decided it was too hard, then discovered that there were a lot of chess players on tne ward.
I learned through playing other (mostly male) patients and doing my homework. It took a lot of dedication to get to grips with the game. I remember when I first realised I could remember how each peice moved with out needing a guide to refer to. It also took playing when I practically knew I would lose. I didn't win much on the psych ward.
I was in the perfect environment to learn. Surrounded by chess players and plenty of free time for everyone.
Most people thankfully don't end up in these environments, and if women are less likely to put the kind of dedication needed in the first place then it would make sense that less women play.
wwow
Wow you end up in a psych ward and learned to play chess. Usually it's the opposite
@@mabel3989 What, usually you end up on a psych ward knowing how to play chess and unlearn it?
@@FronteirWolf no usually you learn to play chess, get great at it and then end up in a psych ward
@@mabel3989 Now I get it.
my answer is this... men are competitive... I don't know how to box... I fight a guy, he broke my nose...end of the fight, I smiled. you cannot find that spirit in women. very rare. it's always there for most men. the warrior spirit. I believe men's innate competitive spirit is the key. not only in chess but in any sports.
💯
The differences between men and women are likely the product of evolution. Humans have been around for maybe a few hundred thousand years, and for all but the last two thousand or so years they were hunter-gatherers. I'd imagine trapping a mammoth would have required analytic ability and physical dexterity. With hunting becoming the male role, the males naturally evolved to become more analytic, as well as bigger and more athletic. Granted, these qualified are no longer significant - now when humans need food, they go to the store and buy it - but you can't expect a couple thousand years of civilization to undo the few hundred thousand years of evolution that preceded it.
Warrior spirit .lmao have you ever seen videos of women literally fighting off bears with bare hands to protect their babies.
Men just want to desperately call dibs on all competitive and logical qualities as masculine so that women don't get credit for doing the same. They get sidelined as nurturing and giving.
It's a game of perspective tbh.
A game that is 100% thinking and your asking why there's not more women in Chess? if women play in the mens league they'll never win, the childcare duties lol what's nonsense the Top 10 Best Juniors in the World are all close getting GM and are 11 to 19 years old all have elo over 2600+
Chess is more appealing to boys thats it. I have a little sister I tried to teach her chess but her friend don't play chess so she forgot about it in a year.
Ig Everything is more appealing to boys💀💀💀
Socialization mate.
It has nothing to do with women's rights, not in 2021. Look at the percentages u put on the screen earlier, countries with far more discrimination against women like Russia and India have much higher levels of female chess players that much more tolerant Europe or North America. U seemed to say that the answer is women believing in themselves, which is kind of silly, o matter how much I believe I can beat magnus carlsen it's not gonna happen. Men and women are not blank slates, we are different. Women are naturally better at some things than men, things like languages, men are better at other things and chess is one. U completely skipped over the evolutionary argument and it is basically the answer, also iq distribution within the sexes plays big part.
If that is the case, what can be done about it? I've read about neuroplasticity where one can change their brain structure by practicing new habits. Isn't it possible that, in this case, women can train aspects of their brain to match that of men (maybe with spatial awareness training)? The same goes for men training to have the natural talents of women.
To use an RPG analogy, wouldn't it be like men have a head start over women in one category but they share the same level cap of potential in said category?
@@cadethumann8605 no its not possible, u are talking about hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and millions when u include our ancestors, women can't simply think themselves into a different brain 🤣🤣
right so ovbiously all the differences you see are all biological and society plays 0 role in anything. Sociology is for SJWS, men go smart woman go cook, arent yall bored of these anti-intellectual takes?
@@briansmusicchannel2998 do u know how misandry west education system discriminate against boys
@@briansmusicchannel2998 the difference in ability between the sexes are just general correlation trends. They are not at all causative.
The biggest factor that you're missing here is that girls are far far less likely to participate in the sport for a variety of cultural reasons. Culture is ultimately the biggest factor -- it explains, for example, why India and Russia have the most grandmasters, because it is a strong part of the culture there.
And discrimination also will be a factor -- listen to the stories of chess players like Anna Cramling, who was hit on by older men plenty of times even when she was a child
You are a very smart person so I won't sugarcoat my comment. 12:45 "We need to arrive at a point where women feel they can achieve anything a man can do". Well, thats exactly what Gary Kasparov said. "Women are weaker fighters". That wasn't an insult. A strong fighter doesn't need the approbation of everything and everyone to fight and win and "feelings" are secondary to him *or her* as a fighter. Thats what he said. In fact, one of the biggest reason why there are more men playing Chess as a whole and more men playing Chess at a High Level and exclusively men at World Championship Level is the same reason why there are waaaay more men being renowned Magicians (for example) : Chess, Magic, etc, requires to *obsess* over painfully repetitive stuff. Hou Yifan said it at 4:29 "Women train less hard comparatively while growing up". And she's exactly right. Men, not only Chess players but men in general, particularly men with a High IQ, often *completely obsess* over stuff and can cut their entire social life living in their small game room or basement eating frozen pizza *for years* : Videogames, RC car/airplane modelling, etc, etc. Women typically don't do that and need social interractions in their day to day life. Women can become Chess Champions *and eventually it will happen* but to achieve that she will need to dump her social life in the ditch from the age of 10 years old or so and totally obsess over Chess for 15 years straight. Because thats what Chess Champions do. And competitive Chess players typically aren't the most adjusted, balanced nor happy people and women typically act very differently (for evolutionary reasons. short answer: Women need a group to survive or have protection / Men can survive alone). So yes, it will happen. A women will become the Chess World Champion eventually and her affect and her life story will be strikingly similar to that of every other Chess Champions before her.
Girls have historically been taught from a young age that obsessing over stuff is bad, and that focussing on ourselves is bad, that we are expected to be social, etc blah blah. In fact that word, obsessing, if replaced by "impassioned" changes the perspective. Your simplistic evaluation of women v men proclivities/ survival is way off, and out of date.
@@marthalea876 Your claims are fallacious and unsubstantiated where his are reasoned and backed up with referenced timestamps on what he is commenting on. In *this* day and age in Western countries, and I don't give a flying fig about the what you believe "historically" women have been taught, women today are taught from a young age they CAN and MUST compete with and against men. It's hilarious that you believe society tells women that focusing on themselves is bad? LOL, the opposite is what is being promoted; that's the entire reason the fashion and make up industries exist...because society encourages them to focus on themselves so that these parasitic industries can keep being fed. Go home, you're drunk.
More logic than whole video, girls just making up silly reasons for not achieving something bigger than men
Even after men have done/invented it
@@marthalea876 You could get rid of every m*sogynistic comment, that, say, the Botez sisters get today and have them free of them for the rest of their lives. I don't think there would be a big change in their ratings. I don't think that the grinding lifestyle would suddenly look like a good option to them compared to what they have. If women were told that obsessing over things were good, they would just get mad at that gender role instead of the role that's currently "put upon" them. In any case, gender roles are mostly just repeating what women (or men) generally like to aspire towards, just in a rigid, simplified way; it's just the rigidity of it that can get annoying, but rigid frameworks are often needed to understand complex reality by turning it into digestible but slightly arbitrary chunks, although naturally we must understand their limitations as well as their insights. Since men often get benefits by being strong, being strong will be a common topic of conversation around men in general. It doesn't mean that every man has to be strong or that a role is being placed upon them in some forceful way.
You yourself call these things "blah blah," so clearly you don't buy it, and many women probably think the same way as you do; given that, what difference would it make if people didn't expect these things of them? Either way you would think those things were "blah blah," so it's not as if you are adopting that position and hence you can't really blame that position for anything or connect it to anything about the matter at hand. For example, you think the idea that obsessing over stuff is bad is "blah blah," and aren't convinced by what you hear, so there must be some feature (unmentioned by you) that is independent from what you hear that makes you choose not to obsess over stuff anyway (if that is what you in fact choose not to do).
People might say high achievers are impassioned, and sometimes obsessive. Usually both words will be mentioned often enough, because frankly there are tradeoffs. In some ways it's brilliant what the men (and less commonly, women) do in this context, and in some ways it can be destructive, and for every great achievement there were drawbacks, negative consequences, and tradeoffs. We focus on the beautiful games of Fischer but that doesn't make other quite ugly aspects of his life any less real, and I don't think focusing on his beautiful games says otherwise. It's just that, if you want to learn from Fischer, you gain from looking at his games, rather than his personal life, so looking at his games is the logical choice there.
The point is that it's not all rosy and that it's no secret being unfairly kept from anyone. If you tell women that you can be number one without making sacrifices and without being weird in some genuinely unattractive way, you are maybe not lying, since it's not impossible (perhaps with Carlsen being a rare exception as a relatively (though far from entirely) normal guy who got there), but you are telling them something extremely implausible, because of the tradeoffs that come with this in general. It would be nearly lying to tell this to men as well. Men are maybe more likely to deal with the ugly (dark, even) aspects of becoming the best. It's not as if some purely rosy reality of being the best is being kept secret from women; it just factually isn't all rosy. Far from it. There are some really cool things about being the best, but the process of getting there is rather ugly, full of sacrifices, and not guaranteed to be satisfying to the men or women that achieve it, and frankly is sometimes unsatisfying and harmful to people who have achieved it, all things considered. We gather benefits from great achievers not to deny their negative aspects, but in order to be constructive; we aren't thereby denying the existence of the ugly reality of it, or keeping it secret from men or women. We all generally want to be good at things but we must always recognize the tradeoffs and see what's best for us; we should not pretend that such tradeoffs don't exist and call such denial "encouragement."
@@marthalea876 You could get rid of every m*sogynistic comment, that, say, the Botez sisters get today and have them free of them for the rest of their lives. I don't think there would be a big change in their ratings. I don't think that the grinding lifestyle would suddenly look like a good option to them compared to what they have. If women were told that obsessing over things were good, they would just get mad at that role instead of the role that's currently "put upon" them. In any case, roles are mostly just repeating what women (or men) generally like to aspire towards, just in a rigid, simplified way; it's just the rigidity of it that can get annoying, but rigid frameworks are often needed to understand complex reality by turning it into digestible but slightly arbitrary chunks, although naturally we must understand their limitations as well as their insights. Since men often get benefits by being strong, being strong will be a common topic of conversation around men in general. It doesn't mean that every man has to be strong or that a role is being placed upon them in some forceful way.
You yourself call these things "blah blah," so clearly you don't buy it, and many women probably think the same way as you do; given that, what difference would it make if people didn't expect these things of them? Either way you would think those things were "blah blah," so it's not as if you are adopting that position and hence you can't really blame that position for anything or connect it to anything about the matter at hand. For example, you think the idea that obsessing over stuff is bad is "blah blah," and aren't convinced by what you hear, so there must be some feature (unmentioned by you) that is independent from what you hear that makes you choose not to obsess over stuff anyway (if that is what you in fact choose not to do).
People might say high achievers are impassioned, and sometimes obsessive. Usually both words will be mentioned often enough, because frankly there are tradeoffs. In some ways it's brilliant what the men (and less commonly, women) do in this context, and in some ways it can be destructive, and for every great achievement there were drawbacks, negative consequences, and tradeoffs. We focus on the beautiful games of Fischer but that doesn't make other quite ugly aspects of his life any less real, and I don't think focusing on his beautiful games says otherwise. It's just that, if you want to learn from Fischer, you gain from looking at his games, rather than his personal life, so looking at his games is the logical choice there.
The point is that it's not all rosy and that it's no secret being unfairly kept from anyone. If you tell women that you can be number one without making sacrifices and without being weird in some genuinely unattractive way, you are maybe not lying, since it's not impossible (perhaps with Carlsen being a rare exception as a relatively (though far from entirely) normal guy who got there), but you are telling them something extremely implausible, because of the tradeoffs that come with this in general. It would be nearly lying to tell this to men as well. Men are maybe more likely to deal with the ugly (dark, even) aspects of becoming the best. It's not as if some purely rosy reality of being the best is being kept secret from women; it just factually isn't all rosy. Far from it. There are some really cool things about being the best, but the process of getting there is rather ugly, full of sacrifices, and not guaranteed to be satisfying to the men or women that achieve it, and frankly is sometimes unsatisfying and harmful to people who have achieved it, all things considered. We gather benefits from great achievers not to deny their negative aspects, but in order to be constructive; we aren't thereby denying the existence of the ugly reality of it, or keeping it secret from men or women. We all generally want to be good at things but we must always recognize the tradeoffs and see what's best for us; we should not pretend that such tradeoffs don't exist and call such denial "encouragement."
This is bad, but hey you're entitled to your opinion.
There's a sociological view additionally to this ( personal theory ) men/boys we start our lives engaging in playful activities that regard building mechanics movement awareness meaning the toys involved we grow up with Lego we build sand castles play with cars ... Objects and activities that have a technical and special aspect is an advantage . Essentially we start our lives playing with things that involve speed height structure via cars helicopters castles cranes buildings etc , which in my theory is a leap to switching more easily to calculation depth perception memory and special awareness later on when introduced to chess , it is more like switching from one toy to another , where girls/females are introduced to textures clothes visual stimuli emotional connection going from stuffed toys and dolls to a chess board is learning something completely new . The transition for a young boy to mathematics and calculation is closer to chess then it is for girls . It starts with the toys and activities .
Thank you. I'm a bit disapointed by the other comments. I'm really interested by the question but people seems to be satisfied with stereotypical answers, like it's just another example of the biological differences between men and women when in fact, sociological factors might be far more influencial regarding it. For instance, the video mentions women players being victims to stereotypical threats. Stereotypical threat is a very well documented phenomenon in which stereotypes function as self-fulfilling prophecies. The most well known example is math tests: men generally are better at those (that's the stereotype ; whether it's true or not, everyone "knows" it's true already). But when the examiner even barely reactivate the stereotype (like the person taking the test simply having to put his or her gender on the test), the difference between men and women results increases. Also, the more obvious the stereotypical threat (like "Boys, do the best you can and Girls, do your best but don't be too hard on yourself if you fail, boys are generally better at this"), the bigger the difference.
after watching this i realised that men are really better at chess
Men are better than almost everything
And I realized that women are seriously under represented and ignored at chess
@@dis_appointed8626 not our problem ... shall we force more to play?
You are saying that a problem of Women to reach high rankings is that people says to them that they can't do it, now I have a truth for you and all women here, this is literally the difference between males and females, when someone tells to a man that he can't reach something he will tryhard and do his best and he will do it, when someone tells the same to a woman than she begin to says: "Hell, this is mysogenistic, please male government come and protect me" and she leaves, and this is not a critique, it's just a fact, women are not made to compete with men, women and men are beginning to understand this once for all, feminism is based on a lye.
The paradoxical aspect of this, is that when a man says to a woman that she can't do something, he is treating her equally to other men, because that's exactly how men treats each other, not all obviously, but it's a generical thing.
In the end, I could totally agree to remove female category, but I think that from the origin the female category was built because women can't survive the stress and competition of a male shared environment, and a female only category prevent the game just to become unfun for them.
Just to be clean and clear, when I say women aren't built to compete with men I'm not saying that men are better, I'm just saying that we are built for different things and men are hugely more competitive than women on average, so women generally would enjoy more non-competitive things were their emotional and creative nature can bless the world better.
You don’t deserve that howls moving castle pfp and it’s okay to be a virgin but you don’t have to right comments on girls videos to make you feel better
You will never be howl
@@Hayden_Cat we meet again... Witch of the Waste! 😌☺️
@@tirionpendragon even the witch of the waste got more hos then you probably do
Thank you, you make me so much hope I’m gonna work harder!!!
Does anyone know if Judit Polgar has a photographic memory? Magnus says he can see every game he’s ever played. That doesn’t sound like a normal thing, does it?
No, she and her two sisters were trained from toddlers by their father Laszlo Polgar in an attempt to prove that prodigies are the result of intense training from an early age. Fischer for instance had, and admitted to, a terrible memory.
It's really highlighted for Magnus, but in reality most Super GMs remember most of the classical games they have played. It's not really something specific to Magnus.
@@viharikrishnan5588 Yes, but much later in her teen years. She was already a Grandmaster by then at age 15. In fact, she beat Bobby's own record for the youngest to obtain that title up until that time by a few months.
@@viharikrishnan5588 Sorry, I don't indulge in hypothetical arguments with internet strangers that can't be proven. I was merely stating facts without speculation. Thank you.
Because men are smarter. It's not a hard question.
Great video, just subbed, keep it up.
Greetings from Serbia ✌️
Men also have higher rating on average. And the
Thing is there are less women in chess it means only the best women are going into chess and for men all type of them are going into chess best and worse. It tell us that if women number increase in chess their average rating will go down even more
men are stronger physically and mentally at every sport, chess, snooker , pool, darts
Sooo. In basketball there are certain men who are taller and stronger than others but the shorter players still win sometimes. Skill is the deciding factor
@@musicplug1730 men are better in every regard
Lemme guess men are innately born as god and better than any woman 😂
Great topic to bring up! You don't see this topic being covered by super popular youtubers which is dissappointing.
Good point but it's not an easy topic and most chess players literally don't care
@@Alessia_Santeramo
*This massive discrepancy exists even though there is no gender bias in the law favouring females.*
Whether you like it or not, the welfare system forces you as a man to pay for single women, many of whom, as you know, are degenerates.
Without welfare and all kinds of affirmative action promoting women in the workplace, women can't support themselves. The feminist welfare state just distributes the burden of taking care of women to all working men. So you, as a man, have the burden of financially supporting these women without any benefit in return, women who will berate you and call you an incel if you disagree with how stunning and brave they are.
Western liberalism forces you as a man to fund the lifestyle of women drinking, sleeping around with a new man every night, popping anti-depressants like candy, and going to the women's march on weekends to whine about how oppressed they are. You're subsidizing all that.
Women being free is not free. Someone has to foot the bill. /
*Islam says, no. No one gets a free ride. If you want to be taken care of, you have to be in a marriage as an obedient wife. And if you don't want to be an obedient wife, go be a burden on your father, who didn't raise you right. And if you don't want to live under your father's roof, go live in the wilderness or beg on the streets. See how long you last there.* .
Wait, are you saying Alessia isn't super popular?
@@Alessia_Santeramoas a woman in Asia starting out chess This is extremely imp and valuable. Which no one will have the honesty to make. Thank you for raising these points
Very very informative...great content
Historically, women have been excellent go players. This is because elite Go in Japan was taught by top player's families, and the daughter would naturally become very strong. Twenty years ago, the player with the best score against the world's number 1, Lee Chang Ho, was a woman, Rui Nai Wei.
And the moment men take over any field it'll become of value. Ex. Coding being considered soft skill before until the tech bros took over.
We see the same question in bridge: why are so few women at the top? In her book, Sabine Auken (a rare female world champion) mentioned some reasons she thought for this disparity (I'm doing this from memory, or how I've remembered her arguments): (*) women aren't raised to be as competitive early on, (*) the best male players don't readily mentor young improving female players, and (*) women aren't as cutthroat to move up the ladder as boys in the pursuit of rankings (in bridge, you switch partners - men are more likely to move up and find better partners; whereas, women stick with their friends even if it hurts their rankings).
I'm not a chess player but I know the reason: Different motivations.
men want to evolve the chess
women just want to show that can beat the top males in chess
It's meaning a lot. Same in the other games and competition where women were inserted.
To make it shorter woman wants to be masculine by beating a man, while men wants to improve the game.
In a summery, Women are tends to act more immature and toxic
@@darksoul6482 what the hell 😂
I think there is something which is overlooked because it is not (yet) fully scientifically proven: Personality Types. There is a fundamental statistical difference in the frequency of Thinking and Introversion in men vs. women. In MBTI, these are INTJ and INTP and there are at least three or for times as many men with that personality as women. This also strongly affects the STEM fields as well, because most of the leading scientists are one of these two types. If you are a woman and have one of these personalities, you are as able as any man in these fields and chess as well. I am missing some data points here (I don't know how to get a lot of chess players to take a test), but I strongly presume you have to be one of these types to even get seriously interested in chess as well.
If you take that into account, the mentioned difference in IQ should also vanish, because if you correlate Personality Types and IQ scores, INTP scores highest and INTJ second. These types are simply better mentally equipped to solve IQ tests, regardless if you are male or female.
And there is probably another factor which is the autistic spectrum. Not surprisingly, the IN.. types are more or less on the autistic spectrum and consistently, there are more men as women too. But I assume that you have to be a fair bit autistic to be a top chess player because the ability to intensely focus for hours really helps here, but at the cost of social abilities which really doesn't matter that much in chess.
So, most of the differences between men and women should simply vanish if you take the personality types into account. Funnily, it also affects the mirror side of personality which are Extroverted Feeling males. No surprise here that INFJ is the rarest type for men and if you look at typical "female" professions not as inferior, but better suited to their dominant personality types you have the same problem with males there. How many males are nursery school teachers?
Personality types is huge man I’m glad you mentioned it .. women that play chess are Also mostly INTJ,sand INTP . I’m an INtJ and I approve this message . There is a very small portion of this type for both men and women but women are also rarer .. you are 100% spot on .. people think that MBtI is crap science and I try to explain how accurate it is how Carl Jung was a genius discovering cognitive functions..I love the fact that you mentioned it ..
@@queensgambit4982 ... and ENTJ/ENTP. If I have to guess from what I am seeing, I'd say Alessia is ENTP. But I'll never know until she tells us. As someone said: "The problem aren't the types, the problem is the test". The cognitive functions and with them the types exist, but many people cannot see their real self and don't give the right answers. The acceptance for MBTI is also very different depending on the type, all the INxx do like it because it explains why they are so different from all the other people.
@@stephanbrunker correct .. I didn’t want to say anything at first , but I have studied the functions in depth and it is real .. at the university of California they hooked up computers to the human brain to track the activity of the different types to study wave brain ls and the validity of Carl Jung’s findings , and it turned out to be accurate .. in types like intjs infj intps and the like , that they were using the entire regions of the brain to solve problems , as a result allowed them to see deeper patterns . For intjs they dubbed it blue zen state , the brain accessed all of its regions to connect different patterns to figure out a problem .. many scholars don’t want it to be true Ana even Jordan Peterson a top clinical psychologists was asked not to ever talk about Carl Jung and his work… and to your point taking the test yield 75 accuracy because people don’t know how to take it because sometimes they want to be something else and don’t understand themselves as well , however you can tell what someone’s type is .. As you gain experience with how the functions work and their placement order of command you will be able to know what their type is without taking the test .. some of the stuff you mentioned that you were in doubt , you are are actually correct , and I also respected you because you didn’t memorize a fact you saw the patterns yourself and arrived at your own conclusions .. as a scientists myself scientific findings agree with you .. Carl Jung is a genius .I’m a complete intj because of him.. People can’t even tell that im introverted , they perceive me as an extrovert ..
@@queensgambit4982 It goes even further ... almost everything is connected to the personality types and their distribution in certain groups and the general population. It explains why there are so few women in chess and it goes as far as it explains politics and success, simply because ES... types make up such a great part of the population and they look after and get influenced from what a lot of people do. Just think of how a video goes viral ... as the number of views increases, the thought is: "i have to see that too, if so many people have seen it, it must be good/real ..." whatever. Since a few years, I am writing those observations in my blog www.intjblog.de . I just stopped translating all the articles some time ago because virtually noone is reading it, but it should work acceptable if you switch the language to "Deutsch" and let AI do the translation for you.
@@stephanbrunker man you are spot on .. I thought I was the only one seeing those connections man and patterns , I’m glad to see that someone out there really gets how deep this is .. the reason why they have nt been able to equalize stem fields is because most women are sensors … sensors learn by rote memory and instructions. They can apply and execute formulas established by others but are weak at creating formulas or new system ,most women struggle to create a system from scratch .. stem fields require creativity and coming up with things beyond known facts.. create something that does nt exist “ engineering .. the N types are the ones that have the ability to do so , that is also why most engineers are N types .. and most N types are men .. yet N types only represent 20-25 percent of the population .. Almost every person i know that plays chess well is An N type .. all the ones with N type reached 2100 plus ratings including myself 2207 peak rating .. yes ES types are the majority 75% .. I can’t believe someone out there saw the same patterns I did .. mBTI has allowed me to see and understand humans from a different lens.. i see and understand why people are diff why they act the way they act and i can predict their behavior based on their type .. Sometimes I shock them by explaining their bahvior or what type of problems they most likely have and I can also advise them on what to do .. MBtI tells you what makes you tick , what gives your energy and what drains you .. if people understood it they would be able to really help develop themselves and position themselves in successful endeavors that compliments their type temperament .. Fortune 500 comp use it , so as google , but they never talk about it and in psychology schools they dismiss it .. I think that they do this on purpose because educating people on it would ruin their social agenda … that is also why Jordan Peterson was told to never talk or credit Carl Jung’s teachings ..
NOT ONLY CHESS ,MATH, ENGINEERING,PHYSICS,MATH OLYMPIAD,AL SPORTS, MIND GAMES, RUBIK CUBES CHAMPIONS, FORMULA 1, INVENTIONS, SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES ....
Madame Curie exists
@@masterblaster3653another 100000 and more male scientists exist
@@Rohit-hk6nd cause men didn't let women to get educated or enroll in schools. No shit sherlock
When our creator made the woman. He made her to be the man’s helper. Not his superior. They were called Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Even. Sorry to upset any of you but that’s the truth of the matter
And in other words man was made in the image of God and women was made in the image of man.
@davew4303 Read my reply on your misogynistic comment.
I Just want to mention that I have no problem with people that are creationists (even though evolution has been proven time and time again). I am just sick and tired of people that are justifying outdated and sexist views against women because of their religion. Men are NOT superior to women, women are NOT second-class citizens and women SHOULD be respected and equally valued in our society. Men are NOT the standard and women are NOT men’s helpers/maids. Women are their own individual beings with their own goals and ambitions and to simply say that women were made to serve men is APPALLING.
@@sonjagrobler827 that would be a possibility had u left a reply other that “read my reply” I don’t see the need to communicate any further
@davew4304 Are you not able to see the replies that I made on your misogynistic standpoint? “I don’t see the need to communicate any further”. That is because you don’t have anything to say/type. Just accept it that you CANNOT control or have authority over a woman simply because you were born with XY chromosomes. Women are grown adults that are their own individuals, with their own responsibilities, goals, ambitions and opinions. We are not second. Throw that whole “superiority”complex, that you so strongly believe in when it comes to women, out the window and you’ll see that your life will change drastically for the better once you accept the fact that women have equal grounds/value. Stop blaming your mediocrity on women and simply start bettering yourself as a human being.
Great video insight & wisdom!
thought experiments aren't wisdom 🤣
@@dagbaramore3640 well, idk, seems like a lot of scientists, philosophers, and theorists endeavor in what is called hypothesis. And it seems like a person capable of arriving at the same conclusion internally, that instruments verify externally, possesses wisdom. that's more or less what new discoveries are, or where they came from. just some thoughts, monsieur amore, thanks for the discourse.
Alot of excuses to me. Another reaaon why men are better. We dont make excuses. We are obsessive creatures so we will win at all costs
What about differences in synaptic density in the brain?
Also the kitchen's floor has squares
Interests are driven by ability .. the short answer for this is due to cognitive ability distribution .. although the average is the same women IQs tend to cluster in the middle and mens dwell on the extremes ( low - high ) of the bell curve .. what that produces is a result where at the higher levels men dominate because they occupy the higher ranges and there are more of them.. that also applies to all fields not just chess .. as to participation , interests are driven by your abilities , people gravitate towards things that bring them success .. they also lose interest once it doesn’t due to negative emotion .. for the past 50 years women’s participation in chess has increased dramatically yet still the rating gap has not changed and it won’t.. polgar is a statistical anomaly and also had an IQ of 170 which obviously occupies the very upper ranges of cognitive ability when you look at all fields you will see the same pattern across all of them …. Elite ratings for women 2300 to 2600 elite ratings for men … 2600-2900 .. it is a huge diff .. with mostly 2700 .. most elite women are 2400 .. so on ave 300 point diff .. which translates to 85% winning prob for men .. that is a huge gap ..
Thanx for the video!
Reading comments was almost so interesting, as watching:)
Men are not only stronger in chess, but in math, physics, and computer science as well. Nobody can rigorously explain the cause for this phenomenon.
Idk if this is a western thing, because I'm from asia and here both were equally strong back in uni. The toppers were both male and female, and in our stem industries here there is barely any disparity. Could also be because everyone is pushed into STEM/law and anything else is seen as useless
@@rocket9688 idk which part of asia you do live. But your statement is bogus my friend.
I also live in asia. Women get more funds, quotas and supports, Men do not get tiniest amount of those perks nowadays.. Morevover Their CGPA is better in some cases but
However, even after that Real talent lies in your brain and instinct..for that with less CGPA Men do better things.
Now some crybaby feminist always bring up conspiracy blah blah garbage. But actually it's what it is
Men do better in those subjects. Women better at nursing, teaching and crafty stuffs.
Because we are different and gender do fkn exist. It has been set by Almighty God
@@darksoul6482 Women don't like arts, crafts and nursing because of God. It's because they were forced into those roles for centuries upon centuries. So it's no surprise when there are less women than men playing chess.
Evolutionary history explains it very well. But of course it is taboo.
Men uses mostly only left side of brain while women use both side of brain this actually reduced problem solving speed and accuracy and causes them to relate everything to other
While men have an objective→do it/solve it/ achieve it simple
I believe, bottom line, it comes down to preferences and interests. Overall, most (not all) women don't give a single flying f*ck about chess. On average, women tend to veer more towards social and care roles dominating beauty sectors and healthcare sectors (nurses, therapists, psychologists, ...) or even teachers (in my experience). Men tend to have more interest in material things and dominate STEM fields. Also think what roles men and women have had to play over centuries and thousands of years. Explains a lot.
However, preferences and interests are learned behaviours, and strongly affected by wider social and familial expectations and pressures.
@@marthalea876 Not fully true. Having young children of each gender you can quickly see stereotypical preferences in toys. As an example we have both boys and girls toys and the kids at the baby and toddler stage still gravitated toward toys that are stereotypical for their gender.
Looking at the data the most plausible explanation is that men have a small advantage in strategy games, most likely a result of evolution. Men have thought about strategy forever, women are stronger at social game for instance - it is why one of the biggest social constructs (schools), after the obv discrimination has ended, are absolutely a female domain. Womens grades are just better on average and most teachers are women.
Yes it's natural that every gender and every person choses what to do with his/her life... I don't get why we must ENCURAGE women to do (let's say chess or STEM) if they just don't want as much as men do... we should just strive to DON'T DISCURAGE, instead of "ENCURAGE" that I see as forcing. Otherwise why we don't talk about the fact that we must ENCURAGE boys and men to become elementary school theacher, given the fact that too few men are school teacher? Or why we don't talk about the fact that we must ENCURAGE girls to become construction workers given the fact that it is an industry dominated by male workers?
yes... but i think we just have that innate competitive spirit...we hate losing. it is how it is. we die in battles. for me chess is like a boxing. now im more into pro League of Legends games.
Great video, Alessia. I didn't realize there was such a difference in female:male players, these days. You'd think women would do very well... but thinking back, you're right. Every time I've tried to talk a woman into chess, she declines.
There are lots of very high rated women on every chess site.
@@beri4138 not even close to top rated man
@@beri4138 average gm destroys top rated woman
@@masterblaster3653 okay.. So can u provide some data of matches where a average GM is destroying top rated women like Hou Yifan, , koneru humpy, judit polgar?
@@RahulSharma-oq2ut just go to their account and check their, there are so many 2600 GM's who would probably destroy these players online no doubt
Look at IQ distribution of genders chart. You will find your answer.
How much does IQ correlate to chess ability? I recall Hikaru only has 102, which is dead-on average.
@@beri4138 I don't think that's true... I find that really hard to believe... 102 IQ is not enough to get to that level... I could be wrong, but yeah i think that is very unlikely the case...
@@beri4138 he might be an anomaly or i dont think that's true data on hikaru IQ .
@@beri4138 thats just a stupid IQ test he took online
@@beri4138 I don't believe that lmao
14 procent in India is much more than 19 procent in Russia😂
You gotta love the sarcasm at the beginning
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:*
_*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison.
Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch.
Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life.
Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy.
Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe.
Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
I read one theory that talked about how little boys brains develop later than little girls brains, so when the brain is at its most plastic and so able to learn at its best speed the boy is roughly seven or eight years old! This stage in little girls is much earlier, and so whilst parents are happy to let little boys play chess at seven years old they generally less prepared to let five year old girls play. This sounds weird but I saw a documentary criticising the teaching of mathematics to children as young as four years old (as is done in British schools) one Hungarian psychologist got quite annoyed saying at that age many little boys brains were not developed enough to be able to learn properly. Just my two pennies worth.
Female Brain and Logic are two different things
sexism is so 1900s, better yourself
Only chess? It's in everything
Yeah chess is only about mental physich how about MMA the highest weight women vs the highest weight men
Chess is not even dependent on physical strength still women doesn't do well here, sed
People can give many explanation but all will end up in excuse
The same thing can be used as to why few Indians are good at gymnastics or football than other countries. now if you make excuse about funds/ gov you're just making excuse
I think it's really disingenuous, you listed social factors but not biological also about social factors you listed ones that are negative for women while ignoring positive ones. That is not how research is done. Instead of being curious and asking why is there a difference between men and women in chess and researching whole topic, you started with the wrong hypothesis that women are same as man in chess but are being "oppressed" and then just tried to protect and prove your point
The reason is interest, far more men like chess and evolutionary
The reason is male brain superiority 💪🏻
No, the reason is men developed strategically minded brains through evolution while women did not.
@@jackjurphy5020 it's both, yes men are naturally better at chess for evolutionary reasons but when u add the fact that women are not interested in anything like the numbers that men are u have the explanation as to why no women are in the top 100 players in the world
@@briansmusicchannel2998 they aren’t interested because they aren’t built for it just like I’m not interested in ballet. It’s a chicken/egg situation
@@jackjurphy5020 I know some men that love ballet and some women that love chess but I agree that men are naturally wired for chess in a way that women are not
About 10.5% of rated FIDE players are women, but less than 2.3% of grandmasters are women. This is about 1/5 as many women that we expect per capita. Aside from relative IQ _distribution,_ there's testosterone. We know that it helps men with spatial relationships, like parking a car. Perhaps that translates to knight jumps, board positions, etc.
I don't want to be demeaning towards chess, I love chess, but I think to play at the highest level you kind need to be a bit socially defective. Women are generally more emotionally intelligent and have an easier time making social connections. Being a weirdo who sits for hours upon hours alone with no social contact staring at chess positions is much more accessible not because of their inherent advantages but because of their inherent disadvantages.
Well said Alessia
The discrimination and ignorance was outstanding in the past. But they have a pint. It is not about inteligence but about capacity. We DO have different capacities that does not make us better or worse.
And the fact that there a less women than men is because men naturally gravitate towarda rational and logical activities. It is not discrimination.
The statistic factor is debunked very easily. Because ot would mean there should be a 100% probability that a woman was a ranked top 10 in the world. There are none.
Men naturally "gravitate" towards logical activities.
Proceeds to ban women from education/ male dominated fields other than caregiving for 1000 of years.
In almost anything competitive men will also try to psych-out other men, it's often just par for the course so I'm not sure how much of the "putting down" of women by men you should put to "misogyny" vs how much to "that's just part of the game". Even harder, because men and women are different I don't know how much, if any, change in behavior should be encouraged or required to allow for gender differences. For example, it may hurt woman more if a man says something bad in the context of the sport vs another woman or perhaps vice versa and how do you tease all that out to set of good policies? If that's something that needs to be addressed I suspect it's going to take a psychologist or three to figure out.
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:*
_*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison.
Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch.
Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life.
Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy.
Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe.
Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
you put misogyny in quotation marks. enough said.
Bellissimo video Alessia.
Spatial awareness is a huge factor, time investment is another.
Men have better spatial awareness and men also invest a lot more time into their interests at an early age.
I have said for years that female tournaments and female titles should be removed, for once it's gender discrimination to only have women(just like it would be gender discrimination to have a male only tournament in Chess) and the second is that the requirement for titles are lowered for women GM than for regular GM.
Is it possible for women to train their spatial awareness with neuroplasticity to match that of men?
I don't know, I think about air traffic control, where Spatial awareness is important, and women do this job better than men.
If you could put your prejudices and politically correct thinking aside, you would see things more objectively. Women were better than men at some things and not at others, and vice versa. There are hundreds of millions of women federates in chess around the world, many more than Norwegian federates, and yet the world champion is a Norweigan. It is not to detract from women the fact that must be certain hardware, wiring, genetics or hormones matter in performance and results.
I don't think you can ignore the evolutionary argument. I mean it sucks, but we have had very different roles for hundreds of thousands of years. That has to have an effect on the brain.
Why is always the reason men like to use for everything? Most disavantages women face are not due to their biology, but because of centuries of patriarcal cultures.
This is why you will always be my favorite chess player. I am a man and I do not agree with any of those pig headed comments . But I think it is because women was not given the same opportunities as men. To have access to the best teachers and trainers And coaches. Because of the culture of the world believing that women are weaker and lesser , And not as smart as men, which is 100% false.
My personal opinion is that Alessia is the best!
The same is true with every sport, art, music, philosophy, etc...
Why though?
@@LolLol-ow5tp simple. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone
@@LolLol-ow5tp differences in male vs female brains. males are deductive problem solvers by nature, women are not. males are much more logical thinkers, women are more emotional. women don't have the innate drive to become, conquer or achieve because they are born with their value, men must create their value. while women can become very good, they cannot become world champion in any competitive field with male competition because of biological differences.
@@viharikrishnan5588 i get it physically but mentally also?
But i think Gary was wright woman panic more in unfavorel positions 😂😂😂😂
I used to play in a "mixed" chess club and we all had fun. Our ladies were playing second german national league and those were fun trips where they guys came along for the fun.
I think, the playing difference really solely comes down to how much work someone puts in and their innate skill for the game.
Adolescent boys tend to be more obsessive about their hobbies than girls, and as such - in the formative years, they get an edge (tap into more of their potential) out of that simple fact.
Some girls at that young age who would have the potential for greatness just might not get into chess but find other activities they prefer for whatever reasons. I doubt it is some "bad climate" for girls in chess. Yes, there are always dickheads - but that hits the boys as much as it hits the girls. Dickheads will be dickheads and it does not matter if they pick on you because of gender or weight or size or the social status of your family or whatever else they notice first.
Another (smaller, IMHO) factor might be, that boys get raised more to be competitive than girls. Which could be the driver for their more obsessive attitude towards activities the boys find interesting. But - with the wisdom of age, I am not sure, which gender gets the shorter end of that respective stick, as being overly competitive also means one neglects other aspects of life.
I agree and merely add that testosterone makes males more competitive.
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:*
_*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison.
Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch.
Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life.
Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy.
Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe.
Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
@@d.bcooper2271 What does that have to do with anything? We all read those incel rants before.
@@ruffianeo3418 *This massive discrepancy exists even though there is no gender bias in the law favouring females.*
Whether you like it or not, the welfare system forces you as a man to pay for single women, many of whom, as you know, are degenerates.
Without welfare and all kinds of affirmative action promoting women in the workplace, women can't support themselves. The feminist welfare state just distributes the burden of taking care of women to all working men. So you, as a man, have the burden of financially supporting these women without any benefit in return, women who will berate you and call you an incel if you disagree with how stunning and brave they are.
Western liberalism forces you as a man to fund the lifestyle of women drinking, sleeping around with a new man every night, popping anti-depressants like candy, and going to the women's march on weekends to whine about how oppressed they are. You're subsidizing all that.
Women being free is not free. Someone has to foot the bill. /
*Islam says, no. No one gets a free ride. If you want to be taken care of, you have to be in a marriage as an obedient wife. And if you don't want to be an obedient wife, go be a burden on your father, who didn't raise you right. And if you don't want to live under your father's roof, go live in the wilderness or beg on the streets. See how long you last there.* .
Just filled with excuses
You forgot to consider that in chess, men have to compete against other men to achieve the title of world champion. The 'open' side of chess is already highly competitive, and introducing more female players might lead to a decline in opportunities "For Them". However, I believe women can make their mark by excelling in the women's category and proving their have some points and the one that can make that with ease the more points they will have. The argument about the 'hardwired' comment has some basis; traditionally, the male mentality has been associated with a competitive and conquering nature. Overcoming challenges and feeling accomplished are essential aspects of this mindset. Instead of succumbing to weakness or frustration, we use the crowded ladder and tough competition as motivation to strive harder, compete, and kill the opposition, and we enjoy that
Excellent!
If you wood see you are bad, you will fix it and wont be bad anymore, but you don’t. Fisher and others are better, so they can see that you are bad. Basically hard to see their own shortcomings. But you can check the participation percentage, which side gets larger in comparison is the side that’s doing better and keeps with it.
women for some reason simply hate chess , my mother runs away whenever i tried to explain chess rules to her , the one time i made her play ( which was 8 years ago ) it , she was super triggered that pawns cant move when there is a piece blocking them , and flipped the board . my sister is not fond of chess either . i have never seen a women interested in math and physics either .
Honestly i think the reason why there’s less women in chess than men is because of stereotypes surrounding the game. Chess, being already so male-dominated throughout history, is typically seen as a “mens game”, so many women are hesitant to enter the world of chess. This can be solved over time hopefully through more leading female chess players who can act as role models for young girls and combat these stereotypes. Also i don’t think it’s fair to generalise a whole gender based on the few females you know who aren’t interested in the game. There are indeed many girls with a love for things such as chess, science, maths and physics (such as myself), and as a female gen z-er, I am hopeful that the trend of more girls becoming interested in such areas will continue.
@@aliciamcfarlane1002 Unfortunately no
There may be girls like you who love math and chess. but most girls are fond of ornamental style clothes etc. The problem here is not that chess is a game that is under the pressure of "male domination" (which is not such a game anyway), but that girls do not like math, chess, etc. calculations. They say why should I waste my time with this, the problem is girls are reluctant
@@aliciamcfarlane1002lol male domination and sh** are just excuses.....what are those males doing??? stoping you from playing chess??.....
Bobby Fisher explained that very fast.
My 10 years old son plays many scholar chess tournaments in Spain. What is very sad to see is that typically there are only 5-8 girls in the best cases among the 50-75 total number of children playing. Why is that? At the age of 10 or 12 y.o. I don't see any misogynistic behaviour (fortunately), and least among the children (don't know about their parents, though). I just think the rather low number of girls is because girls that age usually are not interested in playing chess, or they are just taught to not be interested in chess. We don't have to encourage WOMEN to play chess. We must encourage GIRLS to start playing chess whne they are 5-6 y.o. if we want to reduce the participation gap between males and females. But this is just my opinion.
Judit Polgar was always the outstanding talent. At just 12, she was already ranked number 55 in the world, and in 1991, at age 15, she became the youngest grandmaster up to that point in history.
During two decades at the highest level, she recorded wins against almost all the leading players of her generation, and famously changed the opinion of Kasparov.
In 1989, Kasparov told Playboy magazine, "Chess does not fit women properly. It’s a fight, you know? Women are weaker fighters." But by the end of Polgar’s career he had revised that view, writing that based upon her games, "if to play like a girl meant anything in chess, it would mean relentless aggression."
she is a chess experiment
@@Sathish11SK she was born with higher IQ. So it has nothing to do with experiment.
@@Egg-wt1pk chess has literally nothing to do with IQ
@@kartikeyatiwari2502 It does. Chess is highly corelated with IQ.
@@Egg-wt1pk not at all lol. Chess has zero link with IQ
wow! I didn't know that Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short said those stupid things.
So are there 3 times more women in the TOP 100 of Russia than in the TOP 100 in Italy?
Well done. An interesting subject. At 13.15 you bring up that the language that people, men use needs to be altered. This commonly happens when women enter male spheres. There are cries of misogyny and maltreatment based on harsh or insulting language. What you are really asking for, without realizing it, is for men to alter their behavior to accommodate the women. Rather the women should just deal with it. Men, in competitive environments, are frequently rude, harsh, insulting, and do much worse to each other. It can range from friendly jibes to being cruel. We say mean things to each other. Sometimes to improve each other, or to insult and beat our chest. If you want equality in a competitive sphere, you are gonna get it. You can't expect a special accommodation of civility and join our gang.
Properly break down the statistics. They get a lot more complicated than just more men means more likely top players will be men.
Well only 37 women are GM so participation in the top is not enough compared to the men where there is over 1600 GM for men
I’m not saying women aren’t good at chess it’s not enough competition for women to compete against the men
I agree with you get rid of the women section and have it open for better competition it can only improve this beautiful game
Judit polgar has defeated every Men chess Champion
@@Chesswalk570 yeah you're right
@@Chesswalk570 Not Magnus
@@Chesswalk570 exceptions does not make rules. If by logic we look by ranking then men beat every champian women too.
@@Egg-wt1pk i agree
This example don't give a solve us
These rationalizations are way off the mark ....and the obsession with the illusion of equality likewise....
I agree! From an evolutionary standpoint it makes total sense" Men were prominently the Hunters warriors and Journeyman so mapping" clutch memorization" stratigic problem solving as well as mimicry and adaptability all would be as crucial to them as our obvious differences in strength and aggression! But like you said people are willing to comb over every excuse imaginable to not accept what is literally staring us in the Face!
Look at IQ distribution of genders chart. You will find your answer.
Male variability is the most likely reason. Its a theory Darwin first described where on a bell curve men are more represented at both the low end and the high end of the spectrum.
Women just don't play chess. There's no difference in men playing or women playing. If you saw 50% of the players women because that's how many entered, women would win much more . There will be a woman chess world champion someday
Right off the bat I think a huge factor in the ELO system is that top players are not required to risk their rating by playing lower rated players. But why aren't there more Jill Hunting Rainwomen who can see everything ten moves in advance? I think most of those kind of people are freaks who were born that way. Most people no matter how hard they try will never be that way.
I am just wondering how is the garden so much worse than the jungle.
The first thing which comes to my mind is testosterone levels might affect chess performance. It appears the opposite is true -- that playing chess induces an increase in testosterone. So this is a factor which should be considered.
See, for example: "Challenging the Top Player: A Preliminary Study on Testosterone Response to An Official Chess Tournament With Applications to Esports Medicine"
But certainly social pressure play a large role. I observed myself as a child in the US that the girls started to perform relatively worse at math starting in 4th or 5th grade, perhaps due to social pressure, which I found sad.
And why is that a problem?
Factor 1: but you usually do somethjg that you are good at. I play chess cause eventhough i may be bad compared to other players online, i have beaten everybody i ever have played non online. The same in online chess. It was fun at low elo where i won untill i reached a rating where i lost more than i won.
*Let's offer a course on Western/liberal marriage:*
_*Lesson #1: Don't ever argue with your wife because that is emotional abuse, and she will call the police and accuse you of hurting her. Police don't need any evidence to arrest you, so enjoy your stay in prison.
Lesson #2: Don't you ever dare to deny your wife having sex with others. You don't own her. If you're a real man, you'll help her find a boyfriend or two and let them use your bed while you sleep on the couch.
Lesson #3: Be fair to each other, but remember, she can accuse you of abuse at any time and destroy your life.
Lesson #4. Your wife is tilth for all men (and women). They will use her as they please. Enjoy your married celibacy.
Lesson #5: If your spouse wants to change "their" gender, don't argue. Just be happy for "them," you transphobe.
Lesson #6: Want a divorce? Don't want a divorce? Doesn't matter. She can leave you for any reason or no reason at all. She gets to take at least half your wealth and custody of your children, and you pay all her legal fees. She might even end up living with her boyfriends in the house you bought with your kids.*_
@@d.bcooper2271 i am married but life in central europe where people are not crazy, but thank you.
@@CaitSith87 Nice to hear that
@@CaitSith87
*This massive discrepancy exists even though there is no gender bias in the law favouring females.*
Whether you like it or not, the welfare system forces you as a man to pay for single women, many of whom, as you know, are degenerates.
Without welfare and all kinds of affirmative action promoting women in the workplace, women can't support themselves. The feminist welfare state just distributes the burden of taking care of women to all working men. So you, as a man, have the burden of financially supporting these women without any benefit in return, women who will berate you and call you an incel if you disagree with how stunning and brave they are.
Western liberalism forces you as a man to fund the lifestyle of women drinking, sleeping around with a new man every night, popping anti-depressants like candy, and going to the women's march on weekends to whine about how oppressed they are. You're subsidizing all that.
Women being free is not free. Someone has to foot the bill. /
*Islam says, no. No one gets a free ride. If you want to be taken care of, you have to be in a marriage as an obedient wife. And if you don't want to be an obedient wife, go be a burden on your father, who didn't raise you right. And if you don't want to live under your father's roof, go live in the wilderness or beg on the streets. See how long you last there.* .
Because we are simply the better players.
You want to settle it? Eliminate woman's and men's chess and just and just make it chess, both sexes in the same cometitions. The results will prove it one way or the other. All refutations to this idea are just butthurt cope.
It's a function of numbers playing, many more men, so the pyramid is higher for men
Great picture choice for Nepo
Chess isn’t a sport it’s just a competitive board game
Just play a tournament, i bet you will change your mind
I don't think that eliminating misogynistic comments or thinking is the panacea here. We've had a fairly relentless "you go girl" message in the pop culture since the 80s at least. Both men and women are going to be told sometimes that they're losers, they'll never amount to anything, they suck at chess. It's the ones who go ahead and saddle up anyway who will make it.
Even if 10% of chess players were men and 90% were women, men would still dominate. Statistics play a very small roll, if anything the numbers we see are a consequence, not a cause.
While it is true women go through bullying or other forms of social obstacles in chess, we need to recognise that our roles given by mother nature are very different.
There is a killer instinct that men posses that help them perform so well in competitions, while women are compassionate and allow them to support people and nurture them.
There is nothing wrong with women not being at the top of chess, in the same way there is nothing wrong with men not pursuing nursing or teaching.
Im only bringing here, the stats of the best ever woman: Judit Polgar.
Kasparov - J. Polgar: 12 - 1
Carlsen - J. Polgar: 10 - 1
Anand - J. Polgar: 28 -10
Karpov - Polgar: 20 - 14
Topalov - Pogar: 16 -15
Kramnik - Polgar: 23 - 1
(fuente: Chesslive)
If someone tells you that their "cousin" won a chess championship, you would be justified to assume they were a man, just as is someone told you that their cousin lost a finger on a bet because they thought they could stop a motorcycle's wheel with their hand, you would also be justified to assume they were a man too. We got most of the geniuses, but also most of the idiots.
Can’t we just all agree men are smarter at some things around the world!
Best woman ever the goat was still Judith polgar nobody get even close to her he was in top 10 on the world rven top 8
ciao, se volessi trovare qualche informazione di statistica in piu, nella rivista Torre e Cavallo di maggio 2020 avevo pubblicato un articolo. Se ti interessa mi piacerebbe avere un feedback 👍🏻
Ciao Federico, grazie mille per il feedback e mi dispiace per la risposta tardiva. Potresti mandarmi l'articolo a twitch.alessia@gmail.com?
Excuses upon Excuses
My opinion is: they (majority of women) just don't need it and don't want it.
I don't think kids are excuse here. You probably reach top level in chess before you have kids.
Social effects such as "this game is not for women" and "women can't perform as men in chess" still apply though, but that can't much serve as excuse either. Open chess is already gender equal. No one cares if you are man or woman, just prove your skills on the board against other strong opponents.
Thats a fact men are better chess player than women
It's a question of priorities, women have the skill and brains but dont see chess as the "hell for leather" priority that guys do...♥
Chess seems to be a very competitive sport.
Are a lot of women interested to be so competitive ?
I follow 3 women and 3 men in chess and it’s ok to me 🤷♂️