Men’s Superiority in Chess Explained?
.jpg)
There is an article in the Scientific American titled, “Men’s Superiority in Chess Explained.” While the title of this post bears a question mark, the article’s title did not. The article claims to explain the rationale of why men dominate chess. They basically say that since there are more men playing then they have a larger talent pool and thus are stronger players. However, this seems to be faulty reasoning.
An abundance of men wouldn’t stop women from becoming strong players if it is merely a matter of statistics. If a female is focused and driven, she can certainly can become an elite player regardless of the numbers. The Polgar sisters are example of that… three females in one family! I believe the disparities that exist in chess have more to do with social psychology than any other factor.
I personally don’t believe it is an the issue of intellect since chess mastery and raw intelligence are not as heavily related as we think. However, men and women have different psychological make-ups. This is due to everything from environmental social conditioning to the respective hormonal constitutions. It appears that men have a different motivation and proclivity when it comes to activities involving combat and war.
In general, men tend to take combat games and sporting activities more seriously than women. There is an intense motivation to prove one’s strength and this lasts well into a man’s old age. Is this primordial instinct? Perhaps. Maybe women are smarter because they may find more purposeful things to do than to spend hours and hours on chess or chess-related activities. 🙂
Source: Scientific American
If there were more tiara’s in chess, there would be more strong women players. 🙂
Puzzled? Let me explain. At the US open several years ago, I was on the elevator, on my way to the playing hall for the start of the next round. The elevator stopped, the doors opened, and in walked several young ladies, all wearing tiara’s (the cheap fake kind). Recognizing them as chessplayers, by the fact that they were carrying chess clocks, I inquired .. what’s up with the tiara’s? Turns out they were playing in the Polgar girls championship, and had just decided that it would be fun to go out and buy tiara’s.
The packaging of chess isn’t attractive to girls, so they don’t play, or they drop out very early. Could you imagine Goichberg announcing that tiara’s are available for sale at the book store at the World Open ?? Ha!
Change the packaging, as Susan Polgar recognizes, and more girls will play, and perhaps stick with it, and perhaps get very, very good.
I agree that there shouldn’t be separate women’s titles. Although I fully support separate women’s events, to the extent that they broaden the appeal of the game. Just like I support tournaments that focus on urban youth, or even black chessplayers, like the Paige memorial.
Regarding the tiara’s, they fit right in with Susan’s goals as I understand them. She wants the girls to be fierce competitors on the board, and congenial with each other off the board. So a bunch of new friends going to the mall together is a typical girl bonding thing .. no matter what their age!
Just like trash talking is what brothers do. So we bring that cultural norm to our casual chess play. Someone unfamiliar with the phenomena might misread it as real hostility. But those are some of the events we treasure the most .. master and patzer alike.
Daaim – Isn’t the lack of substantial participation by women in professional chess, the direct factor that explains the existence of only 1 female among the chess elite? Aren’t the other issues, like differing socialization experiences, discomfort with the combat metaphor, etc., simply causal factors for the lack of female participation?
I think it is an interesting question to ponder if only to get at the root of the disparity between male and female players. The argument has merit on both sides, and in each there is some truth. But more importantly the focus must be to understand how women approach the game of chess. I do not believe that women players look at chess as war necessarily. There are other aspects of chess that make it relevant to human beings. It can allow the approach of the artist without defying long held proofs. It may be the case that the fairer sex plays upon the dynamic interaction of the laws of physics in the animation of the pieces. Women have egos too.
Ok, I understand your point. I believe it comes down to focus, training and commitment. The social and cultural presentation keeps large numbers of women away from chess, so very few of the potentially strong ones ever develop their talent.
Focus is why Armenia (pop 3M) has several of the world’s elite GM’s, even though they are a small country. Focus is why the Lithuainian (pop 3M) men’s Olympic basketball team won 3 straight bronze medals since 1992, and hasn’t finished lower than 4th.
And focus is definitely why of the 30 top money leaders on the ladies Professional Golf Tour, 11 are from South Korea. And 3 of the others are of Korean heritage. What’s the explanation? Playing golf is the in thing to do for girls in Korea .. they all play, and aspire to excel, resulting in the discovery and development of the best.
Just like the harvesting of urban black male basketball players in the US .. it’s the sport of choice, everyone plays, resulting in the truly talented being discovered and developed (or exploited depending upon your perspective 🙂 ) If it was just because they were black, then Nigeria and Brazil would dominate world basketball by a considerable margin. But as we know, all of their youngsters play soccer.
Interesting article and discussion.
Clearly multiple factors are important.
The selection effect discussed in the article–fewer women get into chess in the first place so of course there will be fewer GMs just via probability arguments.
Why do fewer women get into chess? The structure of tournaments appeals to boys who want to be at war with one another. Two, the very structure of the game is bellicose. Come on it’s a battle between two midevil armies for goodness’ sake: how many little girls like that?
With the advent of Polgar’s girl-centric tournaments and web sites I think we are headed in the right direction. And as more girls and women participate in tournaments, the more those that come once just “to check it out” will be likely to stay for another as they won’t feel like an outsider, as likely happens now.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some genetic push either: girls tend to value collaboration and cooperation while boys tend to enjoy battles and competition. There isn’t enough data to say this with authority, but it wouldn’t be surprising given the hormonal differences. So if we want girls, have tournaments that stress collaboration and cooperation more. I’m not sure how this could be done (teams perhaps?), but those of you into scholastic chess probably have good ideas.
Incidentally, a great site that for some reason has been under my radar. I’m linking on my sidebar now.
who want it more ?
I train hard for this event after 4 visit to western new york 3 straight loses until my friend Big Will in baltimore train me :
Only female to win under 1600 section : buffalochess.blogspot.com/2008/05/klcc-h-mc-carthy-gipson-grand-prix.html
the truth strength of any real strong chess player
is not the genere of the person but it who wants to put in the hard work ,training and commitment to chess. i dont play or like baskeball yet im African American female at 5’10 150lb
i dont like or wear tiara’s (I think that a Paris Hilton trend)
I have my own unique style
All women are true queens we dont need a crown !
I play chess for the passion and other personal reasons regardless of who sits in front of me ( your child, husbands ,etc.)at the tournaments, parks or coffee shops I just want to play to win . yes women do have ego too !!!
Frankly, if well endowed women chess players simply wore some really low-cut shirts, I bet they would start winning games easily.
🙂