lichess.org
Donate

Invisible Pieces: Women in Chess

@Shizwazoo I agree with your message #104 but I think this is just a problem on the internet in general. There are always a few people on every website who could threaten someone they disagree with and really put some efforts into it.
Article written by "Anonymous", I'm not surprised.
I think chess should unite people, and it doesn't matter who is playing against you (unless it's AI). "Queens gambit" is awesome show and I liked it a lot, but don't promote left-liberal views. With every attempt to draw attention to minorities they provoke prevailing majority.
In our world we should fight with racism, sexism etc., but giving more privileges to minorities just making everything worse. Big companies are making agressive propaganda, trying to show how good are LGBT, feminism etc., but it provokes even more agression. Hiring people on prestige posts just because they have certain (not-white) skin color or views is absurd, you can check many movies and games that were spoiled by such people just to be "correct". And it's keep getting worse.
The more they are getting power and authority, the more they want.
I think that every person should prove their strenght, if you are good at something, you should not worry about someone else. And when someone who don't have enough skills require a place under the sun, he/she should work harder to get it.
Sadly, not all people are understanding this, or they can't admit it. Some are afraid of being fired from their jobs because of their thoughts and views (like in old fascist Germany), but when companies are encouraging inequality, they are making it's even worse and complicated.
Thanks Lichess for posting this, and to the author for writing it. It's easily the best thing I've seen written on this topic. A few of the comments here just prove the point, but hats off to the Lichess community that it seems to only be a minority.

In response to the comment asking what if women just "aren't as interested" as men are. Maybe they aren't. But that's a problem to be solved and not a fact of life. It's something we need to change, and could do so if we really wanted to.

The evidence that women and girls "aren't as much into chess" due to stereotypes and misogyny (both in the game and in society as a whole) is waaaay stronger than the basically nonexistent evidence that it's something natural or biological.

It's a problem that needs addressing both inside and outside chess, but it's the role of every chess site (especially a "radical communist" one!) and organisation to actively identify and then work to remove those barriers. Shame on FIDE.
#120 you have trouble understanding my argument, and I'm not sure why. When you say "in other words" it is a tell that you are constructing a strawman.
@knocturnal It seems disingenuous to dismiss real examples as not reflecting the community just because the community is very large. Do you need 100 million examples? It is a prevalent problem and to dismiss it so quickly feels like you're burying your head in the sand.
#120 also, you may be missing my post #102, which I did not thread correctly.
It is quite puzzling as to why criticism that would help the entire community is not even being considered by a few people.
The problem that women face now wouldn't be any less exasperated for LGBTQ+ players too, who may take up the game in the future and it is not unfounded that the majority is questioned once in a while about the workings of the system, because we are part of the system!

While it is logical to measure inadequacies in physicality or mental capabilities on a research level that does not in any way address the realities of why a player and their family would shy away from seriously pursuing chess!

We need to counter the questions with plausible reasoning and not claim to have created equal platforms when we as men had minimal hand in creating a level playing field and so the argument of equal opportunity is void and still a dream in most parts of the world.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is religious indoctrination which occurs at home that impedes the personal aspirations of a person and more specifically so in the case of women, who are expected to run the household and relinquish their dreams. This is irrespective of the field one wants to achieve in.

Patriarchal societies confidently quote religious scriptures and ethics and their rules to confine women and it is certainly the case with respect to India. And most often than not, chess is dismissed away as a waste of time, with this being one of the reasons to not allow women to pursue chess, when they should actually spend time serving.

Any effort that gives early financial independence to women is frowned upon even to this day, and with chess involving constant travel, some family member always has to accompany the player and bear with the indifferent treatment at every tournament in some way or the other. The system that exists therefore automatically discourages the parent too and a disinterest develops in their minds.

A level playing field is being created with the number of women in policy making and national politics is rising steadily in India, and it is mostly their contribution that helps people to dream bigger, despite the familial hindrances.
For parents who actually want to support their children, a half of them would be dissatisfied with playing conditions, mistreatment and disrespect at every stage of the process, just for playing a chess tournament. This was the case before 2013-14 I'd say from personal experience.

The primary reason again for any improvement arises from policies that provide hope and solace for women to strive despite the problems at home, and current generation parents are openly supporting chess play here in India only because of such decisions that provide better conditions than the past.

It does not however mean that this is already a just and conducive environment.
Only points to there being marginal improvements but there is still a long way to go.
@piazzai

"It does not mean that the more people in a group, the more likely it is that people within that group will be anomalous in some way. The two groups may be equally likely to have anomalous individuals. What it means is that, conditional on being anomalous, an individual is more likely to belong to the group with more people in it."

It is more likely though that there are anomalous people in the larger group than in the smaller one. Let's say you have two groups of people with 90% having a body height between 1.60m and 1.80m, but one group has a thousand members and the other ten. Even if the two groups have the exact same probability distributions, it is more likely to find a person with 2m height in the larger group than in the smaller one. It is more likely that anomalous people exist in the larger group, even if the probability distribution for each individual is the same, simply because the sample size is larger. So, while I think what you're saying about likelihood of membership of anomalous individuals depending on group size is correct, the original statement in the article is correct too and I would argue that it is the correct interpretation of the statement "more extreme values are found in larger populations".
#125 it is not disingenuous. You accept outliers all the time. Planes crash (but very rarely). I'm guessing you don't take that as evidence that the entire aviation community is out to kill you.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.