"In the study, the scientists also discussed the question of why so few women participate in chess at all. While it's possible that there exists a self-selection process based on innate biological differences that leads women to drop out of chess early on, this argument rests on a controversial assumption, the researchers say. That is, it requires that there is an innate difference between genders in the intellectual abilities associated with chess - an assumption that has little empirical evidence to support it."
"Women also seem disadvantaged because they approach chess competitions with less confidence and with a more cautious attitude than their male counterparts. A motivational perspective may be better suited for understanding the underperformance of women as chess players."
You could have maybe also read the title of the first one at least: "Why Men Rank Higher than Women at Chess (It's Not Biological)". Dropping links and saying #Science does not make this a backed up claim. Please stop misinterpreting serious science guys, it's getting kind of ridiculous.
The second paper by the way mentions the same problem, that the above texts and me have mentioned, that there is little evidence for LakoCro's claims. The paper mainly discusses itself with the biological factor of mental fatigue, which is one factor of many in chess performance, but also definitely not an alone-standing reason.
I said it already and I'm saying it again. One big reason for female underperformance and general lack of women in the sport probably has to do with the vast amount of pseudo-scientific sexism that exists almost everywhere on the internet.
Differences in behavior by gender, especially those caused by hormonal differences (testosterone fueled aggression as one example, which lends itself to competitiveness which could make someone more likely to chess) seem reasonable to me, but, as usual, people sleep on how much we are impacted by the society we grow up in. Any Psych or Soc 101 student will point to a hundred different examples of how stereotypes impact our actions which impact our stereotypes in feedback loops (if you tell a student they are smart, they will do demonstrably better on standardized tests, and vice versa), so it seems obvious that looking at the average strength of female chess players and using it as definitive evidence seems like trying to prove something you think is true, rather than exploring whether it is true or not.
Young Judith Polgar used to put a small tiger toy on her side of the chess board at the start of the game, obviously so as to instill some aggresiveness in her mind. One day in an open tournament she played a friend of mine and in response to her tiger, he put a small bambi toy next to his side of the board...
Wait a minute, are we talking about sex or gender here? Because if you consider Bruce Jenner to be a female, then I agree that nothing much can be said about differences between genders. But if you talk about biological sex, then there are biological differences (muscles, hormones, brain functionality) which makes one sex more able in some things than the other.
Also, I don't understand why stating the obvious - that men are better at some things than women - implyes that the one who states that somehow thinks women are inferior? They are not, they are just not as good at some stuff (chess included) as men, and vice-versa. No sexism there.
#4 You get placed based on rating, not gender.
Women are less likely to be interested enough to get a rating of, say, 2500.
@jonesmh "Especially as evident by J. Polgar reaching the rank of #8, this question is invalid."
Pointing to an exception doesn't disqualify a general statement. One doesn't disprove a statement like "women earn less than men", or "men live shorter than women" by pointing at a single woman who earns millions, or a man who celebrates his 110th birthday.
#37 What is worth noting is that some women have great performances in chess, so there is no basis for suggesting as #35 does.
GM Krush pointed out in her recent St. Louis participation that her priorities are self-interested, and therefore chess (which for her doesn't pay well) isn't her primary focus.
these threads always repeat themselves zzzz
i don't know if women have some "innate disadvantage", and frankly don't care (ok, i care a little bit).
all these posts do is fuel my spite and annoyance, and i'm sorry, i understand that you have all been quite civil :) but, if i ever happen to get some "real titles", i'll remember to give you credit.
The larger question is: for the same work, with the same level of performance and the same "parental leave" conditions, are male and female chess players paid the same?
I think the answer is that pay is determined differently by gender because the network of chess professionals don't actively advance this sort of equality.
Online chess (e.g. YouTube, Twitch) might be a disruptive force here which promote equality, with other problems.