Invisible Pieces: Women in Chess

While we're at it, please consider supporting BLM at https://support.eji.org/give/153413/#!/donation/checkout

reading these cringe sexist posts be like #455

I think one thing the FIDE should do is to end this idotic thing of Women titles. I really think women can be equally good as men - given the same amount of training etc. So why have a WGM, WFM and so on which also has lower standards or thresholds.

It is actually also unfair to men aswell, if I want to hold an international title, I have to put in a lot of work (actually quite a lot in my case) and I have to clear a higher bar. So unless scientificly proven otherwise why have separate standards - chess is not boxing, mma or athletics where there are proven differences in physic and body strenght.

Having said that, I agree with the author, if the FIDE and the other bodies do not start treating men and women equal, why should the rest of the community follow. Especially as there always will be people with deplorable views. And while I think that for example Bobby Fischers comment (as wrong as it is) has to be put into the context fo the 1950s, the comment of Nigel Short is just dispicable especially given the role he had and especially because he made the comment after his games against Judith Polgar, who beat him in Monaco 2003 and that was not the only time.

To compare man/woman performance, one has to compare average men elo vs average women elo. It is nonsense to compare max men elo and max women elo because if less women play chess then less of them are likely to be higher ranked than top men players.

According to this infographic the proportion of high ranked women is higher than men's so overall women seem to be even better at chess than men. What do you think ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/a7ct7e/men_and_women_fide_chess_ratings_infographic/

i don't say "all women need to change" just because i've received poor treatment from a few of them.

i just say to myself "wow this particular woman is a b****" and i get on with my life.

but i guess some people like to complain.

The thing is usually men are more career driven then women and thats why at the top level men are better, but if you look it at younger age groups especially now days girls are just as good as boys. thats my opinion anyways.

#459 You are misinterpreting it but ok.
That is not to say men > women in chess. Just that there are a lot more men who play chess.

How many people complaining about this article actually read and understood it? My guess is none.

#459

This infographic is really informative, thanks for posting it. Assuming the numbers are correct, this is the best ressource on this particular topic of discussion I've seen in this thread.

"According to this infographic the proportion of high ranked women is higher than men's so overall women seem to be even better at chess than men. What do you think ?"

I'm not sure I follow this, because I get the opposite result whether I look at the ratio of those rated above 1700 to all players (m 52% to w 32%), those rated above 2000 to all players (m 23% to w 12%) or those rated above 2300 to all players (m 4.2% to w 1.2%).

However, it certainly also isn't proof of the opposite. Rating isn't just based on talent, but on how long people have been playing and what kind of training they receive. One could argue that a toxic environment reduces the number of people who will stay on longer or that it can impede progress in other ways. For sure the argument that the overall ratio women to men is supposedly higher than the same ratio in the top 100 (probably meant to imply natural differences), which was mentioned repeatedly in this thread, is too simple as it doesn't take into account the other factors that lead to people having extremely high ratings other than just raw talent.

In the end, what matters to me in that regard is that there are thousands of women who could easily wipe the floor with more than 90% of chess playing men out there and that fact alone is enough for me to conclude that there are no inherent differences that matter from a practical point of view. And I'm not buying that the passion with which this is argued differently is primarily about a love for mathematical rigour.

In any case, the debate on differences in natural abilities is also kind of a distraction from the rampant sexism discussed in the article and the behavior and statements by FIDE officials. If men were a minority in chess and the head of an official department for men stated that men were naturally more suited to floral arrangements than to playing chess, men would be upset.

What about black people?
Why is it that nobody is making long posts to question their under-representation in chess?
Why is everyone so racist and refuses to acknowledge the more serious OPPRESSION black folks are going through?

Please share to the max so that the message reaches every individual.

Also consider supporting BLM at support.eji.org/give/153413/#!/donation/checkout, one fewer OPPRESSION act for every dollar you donate.