@RatsuTee said in #19:
> Even if we evened up the playing field completely (getting rid of obstacles, equal women/men ratio), I would be flabbergasted if on average, women had the same performance as men in chess. There will always be exceptions like the superb Judit Polgar but that's doesn't prove women on average will perform that well. Just like in, let's say football, women are never going to perform like men, at least on average.
But why would it be the case in chess? In football it makes sense, because it is a physical sport and on average men are physically much stronger than women. In chess, there is no comparable difference. I would be surprised if there was a clear difference in playing strength that could not be accounted for by participation rate and social factors.
If you analyse the games of kis u8 you'll see already a big difference in playing. The gender gap is already there at this young age despite that boys and girls have probably the same support from their parents and the often mentioned "barriers" are not existing or at least have not enough time to make an impact. To this topic it's simply to much talk on a biased view and not enough fact finding.
Yeah I remember your last post, you deleted every comment that disagreed with you. You don't want an open discussion, you want censorship.
@HBT722 said in #32:
> If you analyse the games of kis u8 you'll see already a big difference in playing. The gender gap is already there at this young age despite that boys and girls have probably the same support from their parents and the often mentioned "barriers" are not existing or at least have not enough time to make an impact. To this topic it's simply to much talk on a biased view and not enough fact finding.
Careful bringing up facts against political activists. They don't like it. They decide on their viewpoint based on emotions and find evidence to support it - rather than looking at the evidence to determine a viewpoint.
I get my ass kicked by females regularly at chess tournaments. They have whole teams and family supporting them, are greeted welcomingly by everyone at the tournament. They get cash prizes for being female where equally skilled males get nothing. The playing field is level, if anything they receive more support than males.
Many of these women benefiting from the privileges come from wealthy families and wealthy countries and have large support networks. If we want to look at people who face TRUE adversity playing chess, how about we look to players from underdeveloped countries or poor economic classes who don't have access to training, tournaments and resources, can't afford transport to travel to events, don't have support from their chess federations. These are the players that we should actually be supporting to play the game, regardless of their race or gender.
@AdwaiJithesh0804 said in #22:
> See even FIDE made stuff EASIER for woman and girls. Being a WGM in FIDE is 2300 rating . Meanwhile to be a GM for a man or boy FIDE made it harder because to be a GM you need 2500 rating
> so WOMAN GM = 2300
> GM FOR BOY OR MAN = 2500
> The same title but for boys/man its harder
It's not actually the same title, though. Everyone knows WGM is a lower rating, and a WGM just isn't as impressive as a GM. This is why such titles are a double-edged sword -- they're trying to get more women/girls interested in chess by giving them representation at high levels, but at the same time, giving them a special title reinforces the idea that women just can't perform at the level of men. In chess, there is no biological advantage. It's a level playing field. In my opinion, the existence of WGM does more harm than good. I'm on the fence about all-women's events at all, to be honest. I understand wanting to hold events where women don't have to worry about harassment, but that should be all events, always. I think we should come down hard on *anyone* who harasses *any* opponent, and see where things stand in a decade.
@svensp said in #31:
> But why would it be the case in chess? In football it makes sense, because it is a physical sport and on average men are physically much stronger than women. In chess, there is no comparable difference. I would be surprised if there was a clear difference in playing strength that could not be accounted for by participation rate and social factors.
What makes you think men and women would perform equally? Take an average group of men and women, assign them any complex task and they'll do things differently and get different results. The same would happen if you compared people from 2 different countries, or 2 different age groups, 2 different job paths or 2 different socioeconomic backgrounds.
People are different to each other. Our gender, background, personality all make up who we are. We are not robots who perform, function and react identically to everyone else in the world. There are a myriad of factors that determine our strengths and weaknesses - our biology is one of them.
When you compare different groupings, expect different results. It's normal, it's expected, and it's not indicative of a problem.
This is Total BS. Male chess players Generally are better end of the story doesn't matter how much you wanna belly dance around the subject.
@HBT722 said in #9:
> Judit Polgar was the result of a educational experiment, reducing social contacts and activity from very early childhood on. This cannot count in respect of possible abilities of women. Chess Girls get more attention and incentives than boys and a lot of that what's written in the article is at best to a minor part true, e.g. that boys get more training. Most boys are on their own, studying chess without a coach what today is as easy as it was never before.
> The "barriers" and there impact on women's chess are not the real hindrance and in the article superficial explaind and overestimated.
Polgar is like Trump complaining social security makes people lazy and prevents them from becoming billionaires like him. It's a tongue in cheek comparison, but I often wonder where her insights come from that women categories and titles make women complacent...To me it feels largely theoretical/philosophical... I didnt need those categories and became the best player, therefore these categories are useless and preventing women to become great players.. Is it based in reality..Are there actual women players who had the talent to become top players, but didnt because..well they like to play the women olympiad every year and the national female championship and im WGM already so that's good enough for me... I don't think that they exist and if they did, they wouldnt become top players anyway with such an attitude. I only see women categories helping women players who need it.
Chess is a game where physical performance does not matter at all, it's not like football or basketball.
Segregating women by making chess tournaments only for women and having titles only for women is pure sexism, it's like having university titles segregated for men and women.
It's a shame for chess and an insult to intelligence.
Have a nice day.
@IaIaCthulhuFhtagn said in #39:
> It's a shame for chess and an insult to intelligence.
>
Meaning you are not involved obviously.