@OldTimes said in #69:
> Your response is filled with assertions presented as unquestionable truths, yet they lack any substantive proof. You claim that men in chess receive more encouragement and better training opportunities, but where is the evidence? You point to "well-documented" research, yet fail to cite a single concrete study proving that boys are systematically favored in chess development while girls are actively discouraged. If anything, modern initiatives overwhelmingly focus on promoting female participation, offering scholarships, mentorships, and exclusive tournaments, privileges that male players do not receive. The notion that parents and coaches universally prioritize boys in chess is nothing more than an assumption, unsupported by actual data.
>
> Your insistence on "lived experiences" as a substitute for objective reasoning is equally flawed. Personal anecdotes, no matter how numerous, do not equate to empirical truth. If logic and evidence truly matter, then you should recognize that dismissing counterarguments as "willful ignorance" is not debate but dogmatism. You accuse me of disregarding facts while simultaneously demanding that I accept subjective experiences as definitive proof. That is not reasoned discussion, it is an attempt to shut down dissent by labeling disagreement as 'ignorance'.
>
> Regarding the forum moderation, I did not insult anyone, yet you openly accuse me.
> If anything, it is you who resorts to subtle personal attacks, implying that I lack understanding simply because I do not align with your viewpoint. Respectful discussion is not about demanding unquestioning agreement; it is about engaging with ideas honestly.
> If your position were as self-evident as you claim, it would stand on its own merits without the need for accusations and deflections.
>
> Your take is simply disrespectful and offensive. As I already said I have never been handed invitations, discounts, or exclusive opportunities simply for existing. No boosts, no gender-specific titles to inflate my achievements, no tournaments dedicated to me, no prizes for my gender, no scholarships designed to "promote" my participation. Every step of my chess journey has been through self-study and perseverance, with no institutional support ensuring I feel "included", no coaches, just books I bought with my own money. Yet, if I were a woman, my current rating would make me one of the top female players in my country.
>
> So where exactly is this supposed male privilege in chess? All I see is a system where certain players receive artificial advantages unrelated to skill, while the rest of us must rise through the ranks with no shortcuts and no illusions of special treatment.
> And yet, those same players argue they are treated unfairly?
>
> Should I remind you how you said in your first posts that no actual barriers existed? You changed your narrative quite a bit in a few posts, curious isn't it?
>
> Why don't you link some of your vague 'well documented researches'?
Your argument assumes that if something isn’t explicitly handed to boys as a privilege, then no systemic advantages exist. But barriers aren’t always direct—they’re shaped by biases, opportunities, and expectations. If chess were truly neutral, why do gender disparities persist at every level?
You claim that initiatives supporting women are unfair, yet ignore why they exist—to counterbalance decades of exclusion. These programs don’t inflate achievements; they address an imbalance that shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
Regarding forum moderation, your message did include personal attacks, even if they were made impulsively and later forgotten. Criticizing enforcement while engaging in subtle dismissiveness yourself is contradictory. Respectful discussion isn’t about demanding agreement but engaging with ideas honestly—something that requires acknowledging one’s own missteps as well.
As for my earlier statement that "no actual barriers exist," I meant physical barriers—nothing stops women from playing chess. But systemic and social obstacles have shaped participation.
No one is saying male players don’t struggle. But pretending gender hasn’t influenced access to resources and opportunities in chess is simply ignoring reality. If you want a real discussion, dismissing research as “vague” isn’t the way to do it.
Since you struggle with looking things up yourself, here you go
Stereotype Threats in Chess
https://www.chessable.com/blog/sterotype-threat-in-chess-performance/
Participation rates and gender differences in chess
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2008.1576
Gender bias against female chess players
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/10/female-chess-players-gender-bias#:~:text=More%20than%20100%20high%2Dranking,teens%2C%20stop%20playing%20chess.%E2%80%9D
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371970394_Checking_Gender_Bias_Parents_and_Mentors_Perceive_Less_Chess_Potential_in_Girls
Sexism in chess
https://www.fide.com/fide-against-sexism-and-sexual-abuse-in-chess/#:~:text=This%20letter%2C%20initiated%20by%2014,it%20is%20one%20too%20many.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/chevannes-speaks-against-sexual-assault-misogyny
https://www.dw.com/en/chess-sexism/a-66685808#:~:text=Open%20protest,she%20would%20rather%20not%20meet.&text=So%20is%20chess%20particularly%20affected,facing%20society%20as%20a%20whole.
@TurtleMat said in #70:
> To everyone who is not an uninformed mysoginist : These guys don't want "link to studies", and they don't want to have an honest discussion. In order to have an honest discussion, one must be ready to change their opinion, and to actively try to understand what the other person point is. these guys are not and do not.
>
> Anyone who still refute the existance of structural discrimination against women (and ethnic minorities, and trans people, and a lot of other communities) in 2025 did a lot of work to avoid facing facts. Someone like that is not gonna read your comments in good faith.
>
>
>
> Because you just want us to spend time and energy finding something that you won't want to understand. If you were genuinely interested, you would have been exposed to these documents looong ago. There is no point fighting against windmills. Yes you are a windmill. You are anchored in your narrow understanding of the world and don't want to move.
>
> We have experiences with that on Lichess every time someone posts a blog post that is even remotely speaking about women rights, so we kind of figured out how this work. Either you are oblivious to understanding this matter, or you have an agenda. Both options makes it kind of useless to engage in constructive debate with you. Plus you don't seem to know how to have a constructive debate.
>
> So go inform yourself, and maybe we can have this discussion at a later point :)
> Or stay a loud warrior for the cause of the males, and keep ridiculing yourself ;)
Spot on. There’s no point debating people who have already decided they won’t listen.
They don’t want studies, they want excuses. They don’t want a discussion, they want to dismiss reality while pretending they’re being "rational." At this point, engaging further is just giving them more attention than they deserve.
If they ever decide to approach the topic in good faith, they know where to start.
Also, @OldTimes : You refute that there is a barrier to women in Chess... Which is HILLARIOUS because... YOU are part of this barrier !
Thx for the laugh XD XD
@TurtleMat said in #70:
> To everyone who is not an uninformed mysoginist : These guys don't want "link to studies", and they don't want to have an honest discussion. In order to have an honest discussion, one must be ready to change their opinion, and to actively try to understand what the other person point is. these guys are not and do not.
>
> Anyone who still refute the existance of structural discrimination against women (and ethnic minorities, and trans people, and a lot of other communities) in 2025 did a lot of work to avoid facing facts. Someone like that is not gonna read your comments in good faith.
>
>
>
> Because you just want us to spend time and energy finding something that you won't want to understand. If you were genuinely interested, you would have been exposed to these documents looong ago. There is no point fighting against windmills. Yes you are a windmill. You are anchored in your narrow understanding of the world and don't want to move.
>
> We have experiences with that on Lichess every time someone posts a blog post that is even remotely speaking about women rights, so we kind of figured out how this work. Either you are oblivious to understanding this matter, or you have an agenda. Both options makes it kind of useless to engage in constructive debate with you. Plus you don't seem to know how to have a constructive debate.
>
> So go inform yourself, and maybe we can have this discussion at a later point :)
> Or stay a loud warrior for the cause of the males, and keep ridiculing yourself ;)
Calm down, my friend. Despite all your personal attacks, rest assured that @WuraolaA won’t "accidentally" delete your comment for violating etiquette. You’re perfectly safe.
You fail to address a single argument with actual reasoning. Instead of engaging, you assume anyone who disagrees with you must be either uninformed or malicious. That’s not debate, that’s intellectual cowardice.
Your claim that I must already "know the truth" but refuse to accept it is laughable because the only person here tilting at imaginary foes is you. You’ve convinced yourself that disagreement must come from ignorance or malice, never from reasoned dissent.
That’s why you don’t debate, you preach. And when people don’t kneel, you resort to insults and excuses.
So take your own advice: calm down, gather your thoughts, and try actual discussion instead of empty posturing.
Unless, of course, you’d rather keep making a spectacle of yourself.
@OldTimes said in #74:
>
nice try.
@WuraolaA said in #71:
> Your argument assumes that if something isn’t explicitly handed to boys as a privilege, then no systemic advantages exist. But barriers aren’t always direct—they’re shaped by biases, opportunities, and expectations.
Which opportunities?
> If chess were truly neutral, why do gender disparities persist at every level?
Personal choice.
> You claim that initiatives supporting women are unfair, yet ignore why they exist—to counterbalance decades of exclusion.
Decades before you were even born you mean? Oh I see...it must have been so hard.
> Regarding forum moderation, your message did include personal attacks, even if they were made impulsively and later forgotten.
I did not personally attacked anyone, unlike you.
> No one is saying male players don’t struggle. But pretending gender hasn’t influenced access to resources and opportunities in chess is simply ignoring reality.
Which resourcues, which opportunities?
> Since you struggle with looking things up yourself, here you go
Let's see which scientific studies you came up with.
> Stereotype Threats in Chess
>
> www.chessable.com/blog/sterotype-threat-in-chess-performance/
Really? Maybe you didn't read the article but it says that the pilot phase included only seven participants—six men and one woman. Drawing conclusions about gender-based performance disparities from such an imbalanced and statistically insignificant sample is, at best, premature and, at worst, misleading.
> Participation rates and gender differences in chess
>
> royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2008.1576
This one says "A popular explanation for the small number of women at the top level of intellectually demanding activities from chess to science appeals to biological differences in the intellectual abilities of men and women. " Quite a misogynistic view if you ask me. Why are you presenting these studies as proofs? Did you actually read them? Hahaha oh Lord.
> Gender bias against female chess players
>
> www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2023/10/female-chess-players-gender-bias#:~:text=More%20than%20100%20high%2Dranking,teens%2C%20stop%20playing%20chess.%E2%80%9D
>
> www.researchgate.net/publication/371970394_Checking_Gender_Bias_Parents_and_Mentors_Perceive_Less_Chess_Potential_in_Girls
These 'two' articles are in fact one (why giving me two links to the same study?). I really feel that you didn't read a single thing you posted.
This article relies on a flawed premise that young female chess players face systemic gender bias simply because a few individuals—mainly parents and mentors—believe girls have less potential than boys. The study's methodology is dubious, using a skewed sample of 90% male adults and a high percentage of male children, thus not representing the broader chess community. The claim that women’s participation in chess is stifled by "gender bias" ignores the reality that the lower number of female players in chess may be influenced by personal interest or priorities rather than systemic discrimination. The article doesn’t adequately address the complex dynamics of chess, nor does it provide strong evidence that bias is the core reason for female underrepresentation. Moreover, the notion that girls drop out of chess due to a "lack of brilliance" is unsubstantiated and oversimplifies a much more nuanced issue. Overall, the study lacks methodological rigor and fails to offer a clear, objective analysis.
> Sexism in chess
>
> www.fide.com/fide-against-sexism-and-sexual-abuse-in-chess/#:~:text=This%20letter%2C%20initiated%20by%2014,it%20is%20one%20too%20many.
>
> www.chess.com/news/view/chevannes-speaks-against-sexual-assault-misogyny
>
> www.dw.com/en/chess-sexism/a-66685808#:~:text=Open%20protest,she%20would%20rather%20not%20meet.&text=So%20is%20chess%20particularly%20affected,facing%20society%20as%20a%20whole.
Do I really need to comment on these articles? They are all anecdotes from individual players, some of which are vague (like the letter signed by 100 players, which actually started with 14 signatures from French players who were vaguely complaining about receiving comments, without even specifying by whom). I fear you don't understand what constitutes probative value. If these were your best arguments to claim that chess is a misogynistic environment today, just because it was one in some vaguely defined past, and that women are subjected to unspecified pressures or lack of 'opportunities' (without ever conveniently explaining what these opportunities would be), I would say you can do better.
our most absurd argument at the moment is that since men don't have any affirmative action policies, this is proof that they are already advantaged. If you think about it for a moment, logically, you should realize that it doesn't make much sense.
All of this stems from your desire to feel like a protagonist, as seen in that post you wrote on your blog, where you glorified yourself simply for signing up for a game tournament. No one bothered you while you played, there were no comments, nothing. Yet, your need to cast yourself as both the protagonist and the 'victim' leads you to willingly sacrifice an undefined number of men on the altar of vanity.
@TurtleMat said in #73:
> Also, @OldTimes : You refute that there is a barrier to women in Chess... Which is HILLARIOUS because... YOU are part of this barrier !
>
> Thx for the laugh XD XD
Claiming that I am part of the barrier simply because I disagree with your perspective only weakens your own position. If this is the best you can do, it's not enough.
@OldTimes said in #76:
> Which opportunities?
>
>
>
> Personal choice.
>
>
>
> Decades before you were even born you mean? Oh I see...it must have been so hard.
>
>
>
> I did not personally attacked anyone, unlike you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Which resourcues, which opportunities?
>
>
>
> Let's see which scientific studies you came up with.
>
>
>
> Really? Maybe you didn't read the article but it says that the pilot phase included only seven participants—six men and one woman. Drawing conclusions about gender-based performance disparities from such an imbalanced and statistically insignificant sample is, at best, premature and, at worst, misleading.
>
>
>
> This one says "A popular explanation for the small number of women at the top level of intellectually demanding activities from chess to science appeals to biological differences in the intellectual abilities of men and women. " Quite a misogynistic view if you ask me. Why are you presenting these studies as proofs? Did you actually read them? Hahaha oh Lord.
>
>
>
> These 'two' articles are in fact one (why giving me two links to the same study?). I really feel that you didn't read a single thing you posted.
> This article relies on a flawed premise that young female chess players face systemic gender bias simply because a few individuals—mainly parents and mentors—believe girls have less potential than boys. The study's methodology is dubious, using a skewed sample of 90% male adults and a high percentage of male children, thus not representing the broader chess community. The claim that women’s participation in chess is stifled by "gender bias" ignores the reality that the lower number of female players in chess may be influenced by personal interest or priorities rather than systemic discrimination. The article doesn’t adequately address the complex dynamics of chess, nor does it provide strong evidence that bias is the core reason for female underrepresentation. Moreover, the notion that girls drop out of chess due to a "lack of brilliance" is unsubstantiated and oversimplifies a much more nuanced issue. Overall, the study lacks methodological rigor and fails to offer a clear, objective analysis.
>
>
>
> Do I really need to comment on these articles? They are all anecdotes from individual players, some of which are vague (like the letter signed by 100 players, which actually started with 14 signatures from French players who were vaguely complaining about receiving comments, without even specifying by whom). I fear you don't understand what constitutes probative value. If these were your best arguments to claim that chess is a misogynistic environment today, just because it was one in some vaguely defined past, and that women are subjected to unspecified pressures or lack of 'opportunities' (without ever conveniently explaining what these opportunities would be), I would say you can do better.
> our most absurd argument at the moment is that since men don't have any affirmative action policies, this is proof that they are already advantaged. If you think about it for a moment, logically, you should realize that it doesn't make much sense.
>
> All of this stems from your desire to feel like a protagonist, as seen in that post you wrote on your blog, where you glorified yourself simply for signing up for a game tournament. No one bothered you while you played, there were no comments, nothing. Yet, your need to cast yourself as both the protagonist and the 'victim' leads you to willingly sacrifice an undefined number of men on the altar of vanity.
You asked for studies, I provided them. Instead of engaging with their findings, you cherry-picked sentences out of context to discredit them without addressing their core arguments. That’s not debate; that’s deflection.
If you truly believe gender disparities in chess are purely based on "personal choice," then why do studies repeatedly show that external factors—stereotypes, bias from parents and coaches, and structural barriers—play a role in participation and retention? Dismissing them doesn’t make them disappear.
And about your remark on "decades before I was born"—yes, history matters. Just because you personally didn’t experience past exclusion doesn’t mean its effects magically vanished. That’s why initiatives exist—to level a playing field that wasn’t always fair to begin with.
You don’t have to agree, but at least engage with the data honestly. Otherwise, this is just another circular argument where evidence is ignored simply because it’s inconvenient.
@OldTimes
At this point, it’s clear this discussion isn’t about genuine curiosity or constructive debate. I’ve shared research, explained the broader context of systemic barriers, and addressed your points with reasoning—yet you keep shifting the goalposts.
If you were actually interested in understanding, you’d engage with the sources rather than dismissing them outright. But since your approach is to cherry-pick phrases, misinterpret findings, and reduce everything to personal anecdotes, there’s really no point in continuing.
If you ever decide to approach this topic with an open mind, the information is out there. Until then, I’ll leave you to argue with yourself.
@WuraolaA said in #78:
> You asked for studies, I provided them. Instead of engaging with their findings, you cherry-picked sentences out of context to discredit them without addressing their core arguments. That’s not debate; that’s deflection.
>
> If you truly believe gender disparities in chess are purely based on "personal choice," then why do studies repeatedly show that external factors—stereotypes, bias from parents and coaches, and structural barriers—play a role in participation and retention? Dismissing them doesn’t make them disappear.
>
> And about your remark on "decades before I was born"—yes, history matters. Just because you personally didn’t experience past exclusion doesn’t mean its effects magically vanished. That’s why initiatives exist—to level a playing field that wasn’t always fair to begin with.
>
> You don’t have to agree, but at least engage with the data honestly. Otherwise, this is just another circular argument where evidence is ignored simply because it’s inconvenient.
Is pointing out that a study was conducted on a total of 7 participants cherry picking?
Noticing that one of your studies actually discredits your own theories and is even misogynistic, since it claims that women have 'biological disadvantages', is that cherry picking too?
If your goal was to confirm that you haven't even read the material you've linked, you've just done that.
No, I'm sorry, what happens before we're born and is corrected before we're born does not affect us. There is no genetic memory of the past struggles of female chess players from 1800s for a girl born in the 2000s.
If, as the user you hastily liked the post of (though curiously you didn't accidentally delete it despite it personally attacking me, because in this case it suits your narrative well), I am 'part of the problem', then I suppose your 'problems' are as serious as a complete stranger disagreeing with you on the internet.
Doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.
You are right on one thing though, I don't agree with you.