Blue Pill ExampleFeminists blame sexism in chess for gender differences in performance (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by PowerLevelOver420


Nigel Short, a chess grandmaster, comes under fire simply for pointing out a simple fact which is extremely hard for some to accept- that men and women are different. This difference is extremely easy to notice when it comes to the game of chess where only one woman has ever qualified for the world championships and none have ever won the tournament.

Instead of accepting the biological differences between the sexes, feminists cry, "Sexism!".

I don't post much but I thought this was an interesting example of the whole "gender studies" attitude to differences between the sexes.

[–]Isaiah4verse1 484 points485 points  (71 children)

You know what's sexist about chess? The queen can move anywhere by any amount of spaces but the king can only move one space at a time.

[–]skoobled 282 points283 points  (25 children)

Yes. Because the king is a fat useless status symbol, whereas the Queen is a cunning maneuverer.

Chess is as old skool RP as it gets

[–]koncept61 125 points125 points [recovered]

King doesn't have to move because he's the most important piece and he knows it

[–]whats_the_deal22 62 points63 points  (4 children)

"Paulie may have moved slow, but that's because he didn't have to move for anybody"

[–]nine_one_funk 11 points12 points  (3 children)

"he didn't want anybody hearing what he said, and he didnt want anybody listening to what he was being told..."

[–]itsforhismum 4 points5 points  (1 child)

"as far back as i can remember i always wanted to be a gangster" dadadadadaaa

[–]colucci 26 points27 points  (15 children)

And the pawns are betas. Their first advances towards a girl are met with open arms, that's why they can move two squares in the first move. But then girls don't allow as much advances, hence the pawns being able to move only one square.

All hail RP God chess grandmaster Kasparov. Half-life 3 confirmed.

[–]skoobled 66 points67 points  (13 children)

Don't stretch that metaphor too far...

[–]ztsmart 124 points125 points  (3 children)

White moves first because it refuses to check its privilege

[–]getomc 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Don't forget, White king is always right.

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 14 points15 points  (0 children)

And in the beginning of the game, the position of the king can be swapped for the position of the rook.

In other words, the man can be swapped for the house. :D

[–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LOL that made me laugh for real :D

[–]I-Am-Dickish 29 points30 points  (2 children)

Surprised nobody mentioned the white knights.

[–]dirtybucks 40 points41 points  (0 children)

The only ones who can jump in front of those white betas on turn 1!

[–]colucci 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I'm pretty sure the officer in chess symbolizes chad and how he sneakily slides in your gf's vagina.

[–]GC0W30 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Every time one of my friends has had a Chad, he doesn't do any work or sneaking at all.

She goes to Chad's place or he meets her at a hotel. The girl pays for the hotel with her husband or boyfriend's money....

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And I'm lost... Is that a reference to a movie?

[–]XXXmormon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In mexico they call him Sancho. Chad is the dude who fucks your girlfriend.

[–]RP_Vergil 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Push a Beta far enough and he becomes a Queen. How Apt.

[–]AntixD 0 points1 point  (1 child)

king controls everyone else,has to do nothing

[–]trrrrouble 50 points51 points  (11 children)

Not sure when the switch was made, but the "Queen" was actually "Minister" originally.

There are no women on the battlefield.

[–]csehszlovakze 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Here it's officially called vezér (chief) but idiots keep calling it queen because "that's how they call it in English".

[–]ChadThundercockII 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Vezer is Waziir in Arabic. Waziir means minister.

[–]el_Technico 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Wazir comes from the Persian word vazir. It means minister. Persians invented chess.

[–]1beerthroway 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Feminism ruined another good thing yet again.

[–]TRPtophan 11 points11 points [recovered]

She can't move anywhere, she can move in any direction. Because Patriarchy.

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Except that "L" shape. Those sexist horses!

[–]lovethebottoms 35 points36 points  (22 children)

True , but in order to win you must checkmate the King whereas queens can be produced by moving the pawn to the end of the chess table.

[–]throwaway1643 66 points67 points  (18 children)

So what you're saying is that you can upgrade multiple plates pawns to a queen, that you can spin as many as 8 queens at any one time on the board, that you sacrifice queens who act as the first mate, but it's the king that is the indispensable piece and the captain of the ship? chess sure seems a game for misogynistic shitlords...

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (8 children)

It is simultaneously sexist that you assume the pawns are women to be controlled, and super empowering because women are amazing soldiers.

[–]xyoloboyx 26 points27 points  (3 children)

We all know they are amazing soldiers already, that's the reason why they don't have to have as high physical standards as men in the military.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My body hurts just from reading this. I really hate that they have lower physical standards in professions like the military and the fire department, just wait until someone gets hurt because a woman couldn't lift up a man who was stuck or because she couldn't use her whole body to tackle a door and break it

[–]thedude122487 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I always thought all of the pieces in Chess were implied to be male except the queen

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pawns don't deserve a gender.... they got to get promoted into one

[–]TheDemon333 16 points17 points  (4 children)

9 queens, actually. 8 upgraded pawns and the original.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I wonder if it's actually possible to upgrade all 8 pawns, supposing your opponent lets you. You would have 2 rows of pieces to get past.

[–]khoyo 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Supposing your opponents let's you, it's doable. The hardest thing is that you must take great care not to end the game accidentaly when promoting your pawns (because a lot of queens means a lot a possibility for a checkmate or a null)

[–]Hamilton950B 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Pawns can be promoted to any back row piece at the pawn owner's discretion. So not all pawns grow up to be queens, some can become white knights.

[–]Red_SoloCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or black knights. Or stalwart Rooks.

[–]jolly--roger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

and you can have 8 plates queens on that board while they're not threatening each other. spinning grandmaster.

[–]machimus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm terrible at chess but it's my favorite board game metaphor by far.

[–]Black-Pill 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I have a feeling that Feminist Chess would be boring, tedious and pointless. Fortunately, I don't think it will happen because, between the installation of all the hamster wheels on the board and then having to remake all the pieces to look fat, the whole thing will be too expensive for it to catch on outside of the occasional upper middle class BetaBux household

[–]2IVIaskerade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't forget that nobody is allowed tp move first because white and black are equal.

[–]koncept61 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The wire discusses chess


[–]Dyalibya 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Some cultures call that piece a vizier ( wazeer)

[–]TheRedPhil 1 point2 points  (0 children)


The only female piece, the queen, is a fucking Mary Sue. She can move in any direction, any distance, whatever you want.

[–]Stationarity 96 points97 points  (8 children)

I've played chess for 25 years...there is no 'patriarchy' when you sit down to the board. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. It's brutally fair and transparent. You either got it or you don't. Whining about it won't make you better, honey.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (5 children)

No, but maybe they make easier rules. Like some quota regulation. Everytime a man drops a womans chess piece, he must drop an equivalent of his too. This rule only works one direction, because chivalry.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (4 children)

That's what the knight is for.

[–]Peglegbonesbailey 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What if I am playing as black?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

-50 privilege +50 testosteron

[–]RPDBF 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haven't these people seen pics of kids beating a bunch of old people at chess tournament. The board doesn't give a fuck who's playing.

[–]Vioret 133 points133 points [recovered]

[–][deleted] 83 points84 points  (6 children)

Women are not men with a vagina and boobs. Nigel uses facts, the feminists use ad hominem attacks. How ridiculous that they can use canned and smug retorts which add nothing of value to the conversation other than reinforcing hegemonic intolerance of reality.

[–]RPSigmaStigma 9 points10 points  (0 children)

hegemonic intolerance of reality.

I lol'd. Going to have to remember that one.

[–]rojo-pildora 5 points6 points  (0 children)

See this is interesting because you are right. The combat tactic of calling someone a sexist is just like calling someone a racist. It is absolutely true to the publics eye until you prove otherwise. Which is total sjw bullshit in so many ways.

[–][deleted] 164 points165 points  (91 children)

I'm a chess player and this is honestly a bullshit charge. Judit Polgar, the only woman ever to compete with the best men, thought that being a woman gave her an advantage. I also think anyone making this claim has never been to a chess tournament. Everyone is dead silent and looking down at the chess board focusing. Feminists will call sexism about anything. The see any difference of outcome as evidence against equality of opportunity.

[–]uktexan 64 points65 points  (19 children)

And how can you possibly tar and feather the man after this:

Asked about his thoughts on the lack of women competing in chess, Short, 49, said: “Why should they function in the same way? I don’t have the slightest problem in acknowledging that my wife possesses a much higher degree of emotional intelligence than I do.

“Likewise, she doesn’t feel embarrassed in asking me to manoeuvre the car out of our narrow garage. One is not better than the other, we just have different skills.

[–]Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 40 points41 points  (2 children)

Because following a claim that "women are better than men at X" with "but men are better than women at Y" is heresy. To make it not sexist, the second part must be dropped.

[–]1beerthroway 23 points24 points  (1 child)

It's the religion of the times. All religious doctrine is sacred and unquestioned and when you point out logical flaws you get tarred and feathered.

Additionally, it seems that society values things which men are good at much more than things women are better at, hence the sexism. It's like saying John is better at physics than Frank but Frank is better at tying shoes. There is an inherent value that is derived from usefulness. The things men do tend to be more useful, which is why women could stay at home and be useful.

[–]pl231 12 points12 points [recovered]

people always say this about the emotional intelligence, but it makes literally no sense. what is a common example of something a woman does that shows she has higher emotional intelligence?

honestly I can't think of any trait where men have a bigger advantage than emotional intelligence. I'd say that discrepancy is easily greater than any strength or athleticism discrepancy.

[–]PookIsLovePookIsLife 27 points28 points  (3 children)

One thing I think the average women has an advantage in is picking up and understanding the subtext in a conversation. Men tend to take things at face value when they converse by default.

The whole concept of understanding "womanese" is just understanding conversational subtext.

[–]1beerthroway 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That is also a skill they train for from a young age. They have both the time and the interest in developing that skill. Old school PUAs learned how to develop conversational subtext simply because of its usefulness, with no interest in the skill itself. Often they end up being better at it than women, with less time invested. What does that say about the capacity of men vs. women?

[–]pl231 2 points2 points [recovered]

so they can understand their own gender better than men? how does that confer emotional superiority?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Women do have more intuition, as a group. This is unsurprising, since higher testosterone is associated with lower intuition and men have more testosterone than women. Testosterone is associated with decisiveness (among other things). This is part of the reason why women expect men to make their decisions for them. Our biology dictates that we are better at it.

[–]www777com 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Every time I hear about women's intuition, her "intuition" always has to do with relationships. In a psychology course, I learned that men are tasked-oriented and women are relationship-oriented. So when there is a situation dealing with relationships, of course her intuition will be better than the average man because she's spent her whole life thinking about relationships. If you do anything with enough practice, you gain an intuition about that subject.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

It's a nice thing to say to stop knee-jerk accusations of sexism when you point out male superiority. There really is no category that woman are superior at other than things to do with childbirth and children.

[–]cariboo_j 1 point2 points  (1 child)

how about buying frivolous shit?

[–]alpha_n3rd 98 points99 points  (35 children)

We're homeschooling hippies and despite our very best efforts to the contrary, our daughter is obsessed with pink princesses and not chess. It's genetic.

UPDATE: Turns out she actually likes to play chess. But she still loves her pink princess shit as well.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 79 points80 points  (31 children)

There have been studies that have shown that gender-preference for toys starts as early as 12 months.

I've had feminists tell me that this is the result of culture. And people wonder why we treat women like children.

[–]alpha_n3rd 28 points29 points  (10 children)

Culture has something to do with it. I mean if she lived in the woods and never saw a pink pony she wouldn't know what she was missing. But even in the most primitive tribes the women and men have different preferences for jewelry and makeup and shit.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 35 points36 points  (5 children)

You would think so, but no, girls looked at dolls more than boys as early as 12 months.

The brain comes with quite a few predetermined protocols. It's how animals instinctively know what to do as soon as they're born.

[–]polysyllabist 22 points22 points [recovered]

Turns out our basic programming is legitimately sexist.

[–]PrometheusLight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's sexist that women are forced to have vaginas from conception.

[–]alpha_n3rd 8 points9 points  (1 child)

doesn't surprise me at all that girls would be naturally more maternal

still you have to wonder if the proliferation of pink princess shit doesn't create some sort of self-reinforcing cycle

[–]1 TRP SupporterFred_Flintstone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It happens much earlier than that. World-leading neuroscientist Simon Baron-Cohen found that 1 day out of the womb male babies will pay more attention to mechanical objects than faces, and female babies are opposite.

See a good documentary here (i forget which part SBC talks): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 21 points22 points  (5 children)

Shit, I heard Karen Straughan say that several day-old infants, fresh out the womb, will show gender differences. Boys will look longer at objects vs. girls, and girls will look longer at faces. THAT'S your "STEM Gap" right there!

[–]link5057 5 points6 points  (2 children)

This is true. There are studies on 1 day old infants, the girls are more interested in faces and the boys are more interested in machinery. If I remember later ill find the study and link it

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Everybody is literally born sexist and stereotypical lol

[–]1nzgs 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is a Norwegian (it's in English) documentary about this very subject. He interviews Scandinavian feminists and also respected British doctors and psychologists. Essentially he comes to the conclusion that the feminist narrative on gender contradicts science. It actually led to a gender-science centre in Norway being closed down.


[–]Triglycerine 2 points3 points  (8 children)

Can I get a link to said studies? I only have it seen demonstrated with apes.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 13 points14 points  (7 children)

[–]Triglycerine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very interesting. Thank you.

[–]ex_astris_sci 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I've had feminists tell me that this is the result of culture.

What they could have used as argument were (behavioural) epigenetic changes.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You give them far too much credit. They literally meant that the parents were subconsciously influencing their children towards gendered behaviour over their first 12 months of life.

[–]www777com 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And for a longest time the sole proof that it's culture not gender was in this person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer until David came out and disproved it.

[–]tyrryt 9 points10 points  (1 child)

There is a billion-dollar industry devoted to marketing and selling toys. They sell girls toys to girls because that is what girls want, they aren't in business to lose money.

[–]polyspastos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Make a chess set for her from barbies and whatnot. Unicorns for horses. You will be amazed.

[–][deleted] 12 points12 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

knight to queen's cleavage 12

[–]JayViceroy 13 points14 points  (4 children)

lol no. You didn't lose the game because of her low cut top. You lost the game because you cannot control yourself and she was most likely better than you. This study doesn't mean that all men are better than all women at chess. Take the L dude. She beat you at chess and you have no self control.

[–]Anaxamandrous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha, well said. This sub really hammers the point not to put pussy on a pedestal, and then here's a post about a guy nearly having to be medevac'd under oxygen because he saw a tit. I've been beaten at chess by one girl that I can remember, and though she was cute, she beat me easily because she was a damned beast. Then a male friend of mine beat her and she actually broke into tears over having lost. Nuts.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (22 children)

Your own fault for getting distracted. If you want to play chess, go to a chess tournament. If you want to stare at cleavage, do something else.

[–][deleted] 6 points6 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]blue_27 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I play competitive pool, and usually women will be asked to cover up excessive cleavage. At the same time, I know many girls who will push it as far as they possibly can because they know it distracts us. Because ... boobs.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (19 children)

If they're really indecent, tell the arbiter.

[–]link5057 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Seriously. If it was a legitimate issue (ffs a panic attack? Come on its boobs) he should have at least made it a known issue

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (17 children)

Can you imagine how this would play out if the arbiter politely asked her to cover up, and she decided to take offence?

News: "Deep ingrained misogyny in chess community exposed"

News: " "Please cover up" remark sparks outrage. "I felt so objectified" says woman"

Commentary: "Controversy dubbed "Chess-gate" to be discussed by our panel, with special guest, renowned feminist X"

Blogosphere: "Why is it men think they have the right to tell a woman what she can and can't wear?"

News: "Arbiter resigns over controversy"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (14 children)

Nah. Chess players take chess seriously. There wouldn't be much of an SJW reaction, at least not from chess players.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Which part don't you think would happen? She wouldn't need to be a SJW herself, it would just take a SJW to learn of the events for it to blow up. The news would be all over it, just as they are over this story linked by OP. But I don't think you can say that there's not a single SJW amongst all female chess players.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (9 children)

Female SJWs exist and chess stresses women's chess a little too much, but generally speaking the players don't really care.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

I don't see how this responds to my question, or backs up your original statement. I repeat, which part don't you think would happen? "generally speaking" about the chess community is irrelevant, as it only takes one SJW to bring the issue into the media.

[–]fap_the_pain_away 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That was one of the very best things I've ever read on the internet. You just summed up an entire religion, and death of the world's greatest civilization, in one vignette. We may as well enjoy the decline, so thanks for the laugh.

[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We may as well enjoy the decline, so thanks for the laugh.

Somehow, I think you'll find a way to console yourself, /u/fap_the_pain_away.

[–]Lipophobicity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Should have focused less on the White Knight

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the same as the media looking to cause uproar by looking for racial issues in everything.

[–]garlicextract 94 points95 points  (1 child)

She said: “Chess definitely has a problem with sexism, I have faced it all my career. I’ve been asked if I want to play in the junior section; I’ve even had men refuse to believe I’m there to play.”

The beautiful thing about skill games and sports is you "leave it all on the field". It doesn't matter what shit someone talks prior to the game. If you are good then you will win.


[–]ROTHSCHILD_GOON_1913 35 points36 points  (5 children)

i am a chess master and i can tell you that feminism has been slowly creeping into the chess world for a while now. women's chess and girl's chess is pushed heavily by the major national federations and the international chess governing body (FIDE). it is very easy for them to find sponsorships for these female-only events because it's an easy way for big boy sponsors to play the PR game and look like they're supporting an intellectual, progressive cause.

every now and again, someone pretty high up in the chess world (like nigel) will make comments like this stating that men are simply better than women at chess, due to men and women being fundamentally different. and every single time, the chess media will blow up and a roman legion of white knight beta psuedo-intellectuals will post their "scientific proof" that male and female brains are exactly the same, and that the only reason why there is such a massive discrepancy in male and female chess skill and popularity is because girls are scared of mean nerds who objectify them. every single time. and chess players, being largely beta nerds, believe all this shit at face value.

what's funny is that all chess-playing women are in on the joke and openly so. the US chess championships were held over the past couple weeks in st. louis, and they had a couple of hilarious interviews with the female participants. one girl, when asked why there were so many mistakes being made in the female section as opposed to male, said that "this is women's chess. we always make so many mistakes because we play with our emotions". another one made the comment "this is why women's chess is so great: it will never be solved by a computer, because people watch women's chess because women are playing, not because of the level of play" (i'm paraphrasing here).

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have no doubt, happens everywhere. If women are as good as men (clearly a few are very good, but in general) then the pussy-pass needs to be removed. No WGM, no women-only tournaments, a totally level playing field. Those things are given to encourage the weaker sex, the ones who would be discouraged otherwise. I'm all for encouraging women to play (not at the expense of men, though), but at least be honest about what you are doing.

There is a rabid feminist who often comments on these articles, who thinks she has won the point by citing http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1659/1161

I don't know the others, but Peter McCleod is a decent chap (getting on now, but aren't we all?), but I'm not convinced by this paper. Yes, if you have two samples from two populations that actually have the same (true) mean and standard deviation, then the number (but not the proportion) of individuals in the upper tail will be greater in the larger sample. So much so obvious. But are the chess aptitudes in the general population of men and women the same? This is unknown, but the mere fact that 16x more women take it up to me is an indication that they are not, which means that the female sample is more biased than the male sample. It follows that taking a larger sample from the female population will not give the result they suppose, since the samples will just conform more to the actual mean and sd of each population, which is different. Does that make sense?

[edit] further consideration of that paper: the argument works only if the mean and standard deviations of the two samples (male players and female players) are pretty much the same. But this is what is being argued about, not only that a couple of men at the top are better than all women, but that there is a large disparity, hence a difference in means. If you increase the sample size of women (get more women to play) you just have to that curve get larger, but still lower than the male curve. Interestingly, the paper does not give the mean and sd of men and women separately, nor a test for difference, which is crucial to the argument. I wonder why, other than it didn't give them the answer they wanted.

[–]bustanutmeow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

got a link to the last interview?

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 50 points51 points  (2 children)

Chess is one of the fairest games in existence. If feminists cry sexism at this than its a slam dunk that they are full of bullshit. I mean long term they are just discrediting themselves. But I mean they suck at chess so its no wonder they can't see the end game.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They get blown out in curling too 😂

[–]Meskal 18 points19 points  (13 children)

Judit Polgár was the most talented out of 3 daughters of László Polgár who was considered a pioneer theorist in child-rearing, who believes "geniuses are made, not born". Before he had any children, he wrote a book entitled Bring Up Genius!, and he later raised his daughters according to the precepts outlined therein. Polgár’s experiment with his daughters has been called “one of the most amazing experiments…in the history of human education.”[1] He has been “portrayed by his detractors as a Dr. Frankenstein” and viewed by his admirers as “a Houdini,” noted Peter Maas in the Washington Post in 1992.

The experiment began in 1970 “with a simple premise: that any child has the innate capacity to become a genius in any chosen field, as long as education starts before their third birthday and they begin to specialise at six.”[7] Polgár “battled Hungarian authorities for permission” to home-school the girls.[4][5] “We didn’t go to school, which was very unusual at the time,” Judit recalled in 2008. “People would say, ‘The parents are destroying them, they have to work all day, they have no childhood’. I became defensive, and not very sociable.”

The family lived “in a modest apartment in the heart of Budapest” in which the “narrow living room” was “cluttered with chess books” and one wall was “lined with sketches of chess scenes from centuries ago.”[2] One account described it as “a shrine to unremitting chess practice. Thousands of chess books were stuffed onto shelves. Trophies and boards cluttered the living room. A file card system took up an entire wall. It included records of previous games for endless analytical pleasure and even an index of potential competitors' tournament histories.”

[–]WhenIntegralsAttack 31 points31 points [recovered]

On a somewhat related note, from my experience being a math TA, I think there's something interesting to note. My good students are split pretty evenly between men and women. But the students who actually enjoy math are heavily slanted towards men. I've only had one female student who I would have recommended pursuing a career in math because of her interest.

Women just don't like chess and math. They're both super nerdy and really unpopular. It takes both a highly logical mind and a disregard of social standing to pursue either. Women care far more about social acceptance than men do.

[–]abcd_z 13 points14 points  (0 children)

From the wikipedia article on women in STEM fields:

A meta-analysis concluded that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people. When interests were classified by RIASEC type (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional), Men showed stronger Realistic and Investigative interests, and women showed stronger Artistic, Social, and Conventional interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering, science, and mathematics interests.

In their 3-year interview study, Seymour and Hewitt (1997) found that perceptions that non-STEM academic majors offered better education options and better matched their interests was the most common (46%) reason provided by female students for switching majors from STEM areas to non-STEM areas. The second most frequently cited reason given for switching to non-STEM areas was a reported loss of interest in the women’s chosen STEM majors. Additionally, 38% of female students who remained in STEM majors expressed concerns that there were other academic areas that might be a better fit for their interests. Preston’s (2004) survey of 1,688 individuals who had left sciences also showed that 30% of the women endorsed “other fields more interesting” as their reason for leaving.

[–]kellykebab 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's why they're hammering so hard to be "allowed" into STEM, etc.

[–][deleted] 25 points25 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]trpiece 25 points26 points  (0 children)

It's sexist because she lost to a man.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

It's sexist by definition until chess rules are changed to accommodate more women.

[–]MoneyStatusLooks 22 points22 points [recovered]

Men are more logical. Women have more emotional intelligence.

Holy shit, stop the press. Feminists can suck a dick.

The same applies to other highly logical fields: Poker, day trading/finance etc

[–]PookIsLovePookIsLife 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think male visual-spatial skill also helps. However, it's also a bit misleading to say that because hardly any women are at the top of the game means that chess is sexist. That fact says nothing about the average man vs the average woman, and as we know men tend to have more geniuses as well as more retards. Naturally, men will tend to dominate both sides of the spectrum.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Holy shit, stop the press. Feminists can suck a dick.

Well, that's one way they could win.

[–]AugmentedFury 26 points27 points  (2 children)

It's obvious that feminists feel inferior to men. That's why everything to them is an issue.

[–]TheDon835 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think this is the root of so much bullshit.

[–]2IVIaskerade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem they have is that they evaluate women by male qualifications, and they obviously fall short. Funnily enough, men also fall short when measured against female qualifications.

If they actually stopped crying for a moment, they could see that overall we're pretry equal, but we excel in different areas.

[–]Madflow512 9 points9 points [recovered]

I played national level chess for three years before I stopped playing, I can 100% confirm this article. Given that the ratio of men to women in chess is very unequal, I don't find it surprising that there are not many women in the higher levels, there are barely any in any level that's not specifically a woman's only division. However, many woman I played against played much differently than any man I was up against. 90% of the time, the woman would see the short term plan but fail in the long run. At such a high level, you must be making plans that are many moves in the future, as well as taking into account any and every possible move, something the woman players seemed to struggle with more than men. Some of the games I had against women, especially at the lower levels, they almost expected you to cut them a break every now and again, but especially accept their draw offers. One of my female opponents once started crying because I would not accept her draw offer, and why would I if I'm going to win? Not saying that women cannot be good at chess, I repeatedly switched between board one and two with a woman on my team, and we were about equal in terms of skill, but as far as the other woman players, I couldn't help but notice a difference in the style of play.

[–]2johnnight 1 point2 points  (10 children)

they almost expected you to cut them a break every now and again, but especially accept their draw offers.

Women probably are 'better' at cooperative games. Men would most likely competitively destroy themselves in a Prisoner's Dilemma game and women would cooperate with other women. The problem is that men have invented most games, so they reflect the male 'ethos'. There are games to win solo, not to win together.

OTOH it's more likely that men naturally would yield to women, who would expect them to do this so women would cheat on men. (happened in a tv show). This is what happens in 'real life' games. Your case might confirm this, except that you have decided to override your biological provider instinct for the sake of that particular game.

[–]Madflow512 6 points6 points [recovered]

Chess players yielding to women during a game is a lot more common than you would think. Don't get me wrong, I've met some of my best friends to this day from the chess team I played on many years ago, but almost all of the guys on that team were the type who did not receive much female attention. What this resulted in was the guys caving in to the girls demands to accept a draw or even in some extreme circumstances take back a move. I recall a time where the kid playing on the board next to me in an individual tournament agreed to take back a move if his woman opponent would kiss him after, a great deal for a beta who has all the chess knowledge but absolutely no game. I was tempted to call the stuart over because this was a clear violation of the USCF rules, but decided that it's not my problem, if some beta wants to sell his rating for a brief moment of female attention then so be it.

[–]no_game_player 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That's a very interesting hypothesis. I would suspect there have been Prisoner's Dilemma experiments which analyzed gender. Some interesting setups would be having a single gender, where they know that's the situation, and where they don't know, as well as the competitive genders (always matching a man and a woman), etc.

[–]sweetleef 0 points1 point  (2 children)

and women would cooperate with other women.

More likely they'd sabotage each other using deception and manipulation.

Can you name any "cooperative" game where women, due to their superior cooperation, outperform men? (and if the response is that "well men invent all the games, so women are discriminated against" - what is stopping women from inventing cooperative games?)

[–]Zeparic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe Emotional Intelligence is not the appropriate term for it but women are undeniably more inclined to subscribe to beliefs which resonate with their emotions rather than any tangible reason behind it. Think about the supposed "6th sense" or "women's intuition" which women are often said to posses, or how they're more likely to be superstitious than men. These are manifestation of women's ability(or inability) to operate, not with logic, but with emotions.

When I first swallowed the pill I thought that women were superior to men where games of cunning were concerned. That women were the true "covert operators." But I realize now that isn't true. From an early age women are more inclined by their biology to play a game of social warfare, so naturally they develop these skills earlier. They learn when to hide their true selves and put on facades, how to manipulate to get what they want, playing the role of a sweet girl and a vicious bitch at the appropriate time. All indispensable skills for any human living in a large group.

When men learn how to play this little game, they're the true monsters.

[–]Upvote_To_The_Left 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I've been aware of this for years, i've played a few amateur chess tournaments, and it was predominantly a guy thing. even moreso than video games. I never attributed it to sexism, I just figured it was a cultural thing that more easily imprinted itself on men.

I would love to see more women play chess. But that would mean more women need to take an interest in chess, and that doesn't seem to be happening.

blaming it on sexism is the easiest cop-out ever. fuck that.

[–]RPSigmaStigma 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sandman on YouTube has a good video about female mind games, and he talks about how women prefer social games with more subtle and flexible rules. A good video overall, I think he explains this difference pretty well.

[–]fortwaltonbleach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

that's some serious bullshit. i've spent many years in the chess community and we would be more than accommodating to women. we even had a couple of female presidents of the USCF. nonetheless, the chess scene is the biggest sausage party i can think of.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You know something, when a Grand Master says something about him life long profession he is expert at, and have proved it against many many opponents, I would fucking LISTEN to that guy. Whether I think it's right or wrong, I would try to understand what he is about, since my logic would probably never amount to his on that matter.

[–]Redpillc0re 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Remember women are children. When a kid bangs its head on a chair, the mom would pretend to slap the chair as punishment, because the kid needs someone to take the blame. Same here, the facts are not even disputable. Women don't mind inequality, but they need a scapegoat to take the blame for it.

[–]ArcadesRed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My mother would tell me not to do that again...

[–]md619 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let's just assume for a second that their ridiculous argument that it's a "sexist atmophere" that stops women from playing chess and not an inherent distance for logical thinking and forethought. So what? No man would expect a primarily female field to change how they act in order to feel more accepted. He would either change himself, suck it up or simply not move into that field. If it's important enough to you, you'll find away. If you let a "sexist atmophere" get in your way then I seriously question your dedication.

[–]Audunis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many many many Grandmasters are Jewish. So clearly it is anti-goyism!

[–]DXGypsy 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I find it revealing that the only times radfems acknowledge there is a difference between men and women is when it suits their purpose of painting women as external victims.

Of course, that's the same tact used by every social justice movement du'jour.

But in regards to this story, it's as simple as simple can be. Chess is performance based and women are allowed to compete on the same "field". If they were good enough, there'd be a female world champion. But there's not. So...

[–]anihilistlol 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If they were good enough, there'd be a female world champion.

Not true. Assume that chess skill is normally distributed, so that most people are average and very few are very good. If you sample ten million random people, the maximum skill rating found is, with high probability, going to be higher than the maximum skill level you would find if you sampled 100 people. This just follows from the fact that, every person you sample increases the odds that you will find at least one person with a very high rating, in the same way that flipping a coin multiple times will increase the chance of getting at least one heads.

Basically, way more men play chess than women, so it's by simple statistics, that there will be more male chess champions.

I don't think this explains the difference in average chess ratings between men and women, which is a huge difference, by the way. If male and female chess skill were both distributed the same and given that we have 100+ years of sample points (people), the average for both men and women should be similar.

[–]ghostbrainalpha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funny that even inside a game of Chess the Queen has all the advantages, but in the end the player who still has a King wins.

[–]triangularmeerkat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are there significantly more male than female chess players? Because I feel like that statistic is ignored when they talk about how there are no champions in the US/British big chess tournaments.

[–]Stinkfished 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol those twitter comments, good luck getting ahead against a literal chess master.

[–]AkaviriDragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Women are not achieving enough. Should I become the achiever I would like to see? No. No need. Its easier to complain about it and expect men to deal with the problem. Let them accomodate for me. I need only ask."

[–]aazav 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course it's not their own fault.

[–]CanadianMastermind 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This difference is extremely easy to notice when it comes to the game of chess where only one woman has ever qualified for the world championships and none have ever won the tournament.

There are indeed differences between men and women, but this kind of rationale is not how you'd pinpoint them. Using the same logic, a person in the 80s could have argued that black people are naturally bad at tennis given how few of them had achieved anything in the sport up until that point. Participation in an activity is highly dependent on other variables--wealth, class, culture, etc. Tennis is an expensive sport (compared to, say, basketball) and that itself been the bigger factor in who ends up playing it.

[–]Tqbfjotlds 2 points2 points [recovered]

Participation in an activity is highly dependent on other variables--wealth, class, culture, etc.

And none of those factors apply to chess. And none of those factors apply to the exceptionally privileged women in the first world.

[–]jaimewarlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The differences between men and women are even more pronounced in the game of Starcraft.

[–]1beerthroway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Another example of feminism taking the exception as the rule. He said that on average, women don't do as well as men in chess. This is a quantifiable fact. The same thing has happened in a million other competitions/leagues/skills.

Feminists will then find the one woman who can beat the one man at the top and say "See! All women are better than all men at x!" Like the one at the top has anything to do with the majority. They are trying to make the exception the rule.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Women are always so quick to jump on anecdotal evidence. 'You lost to a woman once! Therefore your argument is invalid'. Uhh... yeah... A single happenstance does not make a trend... Honestly, in numerous debates I've had with different women over the years, they never seem to grasp the law of averages. It's a key aspect of logical probablism and reasoning. The last debate I was a part of involved a woman who claimed that women can better empathize with the problems of men. She was a therapist... and lost her shit and called me a 'mansplainer' when I poked holes in her argument. Went straight to ad hominem attacks as I chuckled in her face from behind my wall of logic.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

I'm not saying that men aren't better at Chess but 100% the biggest reason for this discrepancy is that far more men play chess than women do..

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea 22 points23 points  (6 children)

Chicken and the egg. The reason that men play chess far more than women do is because they're both better at it and more mentally stimulated by it than women are.

[–]anihilistlol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That only explains why there are more male chess champions.

But, if we were sampling men and women randomly from the same skill distribution, you would find the mean average skill of both and men and women should be equal, if skill was equally distributed. But men have a much higher average rating.

[–]ChrisBenRoy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I honestly read the title and thought this was about the abilities of the King vs Queen pieces themselves. Is that a bad sign at how bad the whole feminism thing has gotten that something that ridiculous is actually a believable scenario?

[–]RatherPlayChess 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's only sexist because to them the brain is a mysterious black box. In reality, there is a vast difference between the brain matter of men and women and how it is used.

Without considering the function of the forms, in sheer terms of content and volume, from WebMD

Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume,"

[–]Nicholas_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Saw that today and shook my head.

I've made it my goal now that anything I see on tv or online which includes the word feminism I'll instantly disregard and turn off.

[–]downvotegenie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's strange that feminists advocate women being equal to men in every positive way, but cannot view women in those same negative ways. Chess was developed by men. Odds are good it involves modes of thinking more interesting and inherent to men.

[–]johnchapel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

3d Wave Feminists don't believe in instinctual evolution. Furthermore, they tend to quite literally not hear arguments involving them.

Convincing 3rd wavers of an inherent male drive towards concepts involved in chess is not Step 1. Turning them on to social dynamics is.

[–]recon_johnny 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chess is about as real as it gets. Why hasn't there been any decent response to the question of lack of women in chess.

Nigel says he has no problem in saying his wife is better in some areas, but....apparently it's because of a lot of sexist jokes and overbearing sex-based (in this case, male) superiority that drive out all the women.

Wonder if they ever heard of tumblr.

[–]Rougepellet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would sexism get into chess? You either win, lose or draw. Its very easy to tell which of those three you accomplished. These feminists never rest XD

[–]kixxaxxas 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Math will be next. 2+2=4 is sexist. No doll, if you think its 3 your just retarded.

[–]throwaway1643 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, Lawrence Summers was sacked from Harvard for making comments on gender inequalities in academia...

[–]TriangleChoke86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a reasonably active competitor in chess tournaments here in Canada I can make some observations about women in chess here.

1) There are a lot more men than women, especially adults. You VERY rarely see women over 30 in a chess tournament big or small. In youth chess you see a lot more girls, I'd say maybe 15-20% ballpark.

2) Women are treated exceedingly well at tournaments for exactly the reasons you'd think (a substantial number of chess players are weirdos who've never so much as brushed up against a woman), especially the large ones (large tournaments, not large women, although they're treated well too).

3) There does seem to be a cap on the strength women are able to attain. Even the very talented young girls seem to get stuck around the master level, and then generally leave chess sometime in their early 20s.

I think the big difference is that girls don't stick with chess, even the very talented junior girls don't stick around once they're out of college. Mind you a lot of talented junior boys don't have anything to do with chess once they enter the work world either, but amongst women the dropoff is close to 100%. This has nothing to do with the culture of chess itself, which is admittedly a little weird, but not in the slightest bit hostile towards women.

[–]DoesNotMatterAnymore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Judith Polgar, the former women’s world champion, beat Nigel Short eight classical games to three in total with five draws,” she said.

hahaha you should know that, Judit has 2 other sisters, all of them were taught to play chess since a really young age, by they DAD.

[–]FallenHighSchoolJock 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I wouldn't call it sexism because I don't think that men are actively excluding women from Chess but to be fair, when a sport becomes dominated by mostly men it makes it kind of intimidating for women to join it. Like how it's intimidating for men to become nurses. That said, women seem to dislike games in general unless they are extremely mindless ones like Candy Crush or Farmville. Has there ever been any research as to why this is?

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Finzi 0 points1 point  (3 children)

No actually natural talent plays a big role in chess. Nigel Short has practiced chess more than you, but he's probably also more talented

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Finzi 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes I'm talking about the intelligence that is relevant to chess. It's partially innate, like math. Obviously no one is born knowing advanced math, but talent helps some people learn it a lot faster and better

[–]Paddy32 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Did you know that once they opened the world qualifiers for all genders. Only 1 woman made it through the qualifiers. They then had to make a separate tournament only for woman because people would be upset if they saw no women in all gender tournaments.

load more comments (28 replies)