What Men Think About Women Chessplayers

I filed 'Sis' suggestion as a research project in my "later" folder because I've got a mile long worklist of projects in various stages of completion; but later came sooner than I thought!

As I was doing some research on one of those projects one evening, I came across a very interesting discussion at Avler Chess. While it does not directly address the treatment of women in professional chess, I nonetheless found it very revealing about the current state of the male psyche regarding female chessplayers and women in general.

The Discussion:

Date: 07 Oct 2003 15:13:44 From: Franky1998 Subject: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? I hope that the women reading this can be objective in responding to my question, and don't think that I am a male chauvinist or something similar. To the opposite I am upset with that fact, so I am doing a research on this. Thank you, Frank Lorenzo

Date: 07 Oct 2003 16:41:08 From: Bob Musicant Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Women's brains are organized differently from men's. See "The Essential Difference," by Simon Bar-Cohen, who has done a lot of research on this. Bob Musicant

Date: 07 Oct 2003 18:05:21 From: Mhoulsby Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Bob, Please excuse my impertinence in correcting your typo with respect name of the above author, it is Simon Baron-Cohen. To give an answer to the question in the subject heading of the thread, my friend Sara, who is a smart woman, a professional in the IT industry (systems designer) a sci-fj and fantasy fan, and, one might think an ideal candidate to become a fine chess player if she wished, told me that the reaspn that she, and, perhaps, many other women are completely uninterested in chess is because of the "minutiae" (her adjective) associated with the game, by which, as she explained, she meant the necessity of learning endgames, tactics, openings, etc. etc... "Too nerdy!", she said, which, coming from her, was quite the damning indictment. Mark Houlsby

Date: 08 Oct 2003 01:27:50 From: marc margolies Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? are you sure she wasn't talking about your mentality, houlsby?

Date: 08 Oct 2003 01:32:46 From: Mhoulsby Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Well...DUH!!! Clearly, since I am a man, she was talking about me. Clearly, since you're a man, she was talking about you, too. She was talking about ALL men, you trolling moron. You're really not good at this shit. Now might be a good time to stop.

Date: 08 Oct 2003 03:15:21 From: Bob Musicant Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Mark, Thanks for the correction. The capacity to visualize is different in men and women. Some of that fundamental difference is captured in the book title "Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps: How We're Different and What to Do About It." Men are more field independent (the ability to extract a target pattern from a more complex pattern). Etc. Also it seems that more women than men shrink from the aggressive aspect of the game. Bob

Date: 07 Oct 2003 21:16:31 From: Joe Schoeman Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Most women think chess is pointless, (they're probably right in the bigger scheme), men don't think about this, we just like to play.

Date: 08 Oct 2003 18:35:02 From: Kristian Ronge Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Still, millions of women like to play Chinese Checkers, Kalaha, Mah-Jong, and other similar games, who - objectively - are just as "pointless". -- Kristian Ronge

Date: 08 Oct 2003 21:19:32 From: Mhoulsby Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Of course you are correct, but I think perhaps the point is that it's necessary to expend a great deal of time and energy *before* one can *start* to play chess at a reasonable level, and after *that* it's pointless. Chinese checkers is pointless and has the added value of instant gratification. Mark Houlsby

Date: 07 Oct 2003 22:30:22 From: CeeBee Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? (Franky1998) wrote in rec.games.chess.misc: I hope that the women reading this can be objective in responding to my question, and don't think that I am a male chauvinist or something similar. To the opposite I am upset with that fact, so I am doing a research on this. I'm doing research on women too, but it doesn't upset me, really. -- CeeBee Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!" Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"

Date: 08 Oct 2003 09:35:08 From: David Ames Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Doubtless there are fewer women chess players than men chess players; consequently there are fewer "efficient" women chess players than men chess players. That may be the answer to a question you should have asked. David Ames

Date: 09 Oct 2003 01:49:32 From: Doug Wedel Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Ah, but look at bridge. There may very well be *more* women bridge players than men bridge players, yet there are very very few women among the world class bridge players. Wonder why.

Date: 10 Oct 2003 17:48:07 From: John Macnab Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? With all due respect, this hardly seems defensible at this level of abstraction. We have a social phenomenon: men dominate chess at all levels. We have a plausible scientific claim: men's and women's brains are "structured" differently (although I'm not quite sure what this means). You now have a reasonable hypothesis, that's all. FWIW, I'm very skeptical that there is a simple (single-factor) explanation here, any more than there could be a simple explanation for the observation that about half of the world champions had Jewish ancestry. Or that only one has had Spanish for a first language, etc. John

Date: 11 Oct 2003 01:08:15 From: Bob Musicant Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? John, The principle of parsimony, aka Occam's razor, suggests that in the case of male superiority at chess, we not go hunting for alternative explanations when an already adequate one exists, that being men's better natural ability at spatial visualization. This is a thoroughly documented phenomenon, research on which goes back many years. Are there contributions from other sources? Most likely, but take away the difference that I am referring to and the remaining difference is in all likelihood trivial, at least in comparison with the primary source of the difference. I don't know the explanation for the Jewish dominance in chess, or for the dearth of Spanish-speaking champions. Bob

Date: 12 Oct 2003 04:30:37 From: John Macnab Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Surely you recognize that I am not doubting the principle of parsimony; I am suggesting that "superior spatial visualization" as it has been defined by experimenters is likely NOT an adequate explanation. Do these studies manage to control for culture, language and education? Of course, given the sparseness of the explanation given here, I admit that I could be wrong... This thread reminds me of the fruitless links between race and intelligence, or links between race and athletic ability arguments that crop up with depressing regularity. John

Date: 11 Oct 2003 10:13:48 From: Alsvid Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? You will find that the psychological and neurological sciences often attempt to find causal answers *and will hold up shaky evidence as the truth when it supports causal theories* over normative ones. Why are females paid less in work? It is proven that, at school, they out-perform males in tests. Yet their superiority here does not cross over into being valued and paid equally at work. It is because of the way society still operates along gender lines. One does not need to pretend we understand the brain. The same may well be true of chess. We could be eager to point to an apparent male deficiency at abstract mind games as caused by a difference in brain structure, if only to wildly scramble back legitimacy for our long-held assumption that they were naturally inferior. Get more women in chess and, hey, maybe they'll kick our asses, just like they're doing in schools. Tom

Date: 11 Oct 2003 19:55:05 From: Bob Musicant Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? "Alsvid" wrote in message... Why are females paid less in work? They aren't. Women are paid the same as men for doing the same job, education and experience being equal. At least that is the case in the U.S. If you are talking about less pay for the total female workforce, sure, but then you have to take into account that more women than men opt for part-time work, and that more women than men drop out of the workforce temporarily or permanently in order to attend to children. Your point about women doing better in school is well-taken, and only underscores another myth, that being that "schools shortchange girls

Date: 12 Oct 2003 02:24:17 From: marc margolies Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? women do better in school than men do because most of their teachers are women. and these women practice favoritism and have equally stupid prejudices about boys comparable to male chess players who have never had their ass kicked by a WGM.

Date: 12 Oct 2003 04:34:03 From: John Macnab Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? marc margolies wrote: women do better in school than men do because most of their teachers are women. and these women practice favoritism and have equally stupid prejudices about boys comparable to male chess players who have never had their ass kicked by a WGM. And your evidence is? John

Date: 12 Oct 2003 04:33:09 From: John Macnab Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Bob Musicant wrote: "Alsvid" wrote in message news: Why are females paid less in work? They aren't. Women are paid the same as men for doing the same job, education and experience being equal. At least that is the case in the U.S. I'd love to see compelling evidence of this! Do you have a source? If you are talking about less pay for the total female workforce, sure, but then you have to take into account that more women than men opt for part-time work, and that more women than men drop out of the workforce temporarily or permanently in order to attend to children. Your point about women doing better in school is well-taken, and only underscores another myth, that being that "schools shortchange girls." Oh my goodness. So the biological necessity of being the child-bearer in a family is justifiable grounds for wage discrimination, is it? John

Date: 12 Oct 2003 18:43:21 From: Nick Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? Dear Mr. Musicant, I concur that it should be essential to take into account such comparative factors as education and work experience when attempting to make sense of that cited statistic. You might have overlooked this possibility of institutional sex discrimination. Could it be possible that every worker, both male and female, in a specific occupation tends to be paid less because most workers in that occupation are female and their male employers tend to place less value on "women's work" (the "pink collar" jobs), whether done by men or women? For a historical example, as I recall, when nearly all secretaries were men, being a secretary was a relatively well-respected and well-paying occupation. After women had become nearly all of the secretaries, that occupation became relatively less respected and lower paying. In my view, as long as men continue to hold nearly all of the power at the top in the workplace, some discrimination against women probably will continue. 'Give a girl an education, and introduce her properly into the world, and ten to one but she has the means of settling well, without farther expense to anybody.' --Jane Austen (Mansfield Park) --Nick

Date: 20 Oct 2003 00:48:10 From: Alsvid Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? It turns out women outperform hugely at University, too. I think it's only a matter of time before women take up chess more widely and win in disgustingly large amounts. http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=455137 Tom

Date: 13 Oct 2003 02:40:26 From: John Savard Subject: Re: Why women are less efficient at chess than men? It is believed that there is a difference in the brains of men and women, so that while pictures and diagrams make it easier for boys to learn math, girls follow the verbal explanations better. Since chess is a game of spatial relationships, that would give men some advantage. Also, men often have more spare time to spend on hobbies, from model railroading on up. They have more economic power, and women get stuck with housework and child care. Of course, some women have done well at chess, indicating social barriers are a more important factor. Also, not to be forgotten is that men need to be good at something - whether it is their grades, their car, getting high scores at video games, doing well on the football field, making music with their own rock band - to impress girls. Girls impress boys by looking pretty. So men will be driven to all sorts of competitive activities, which women may well tend to see as silly. There are so many factors that to isolate them, and determine their relative weight, would be an impossible task. John Savard

Hmmmm, so the final word in this discussion, despite some interesting responses (including a quotation from Jane Austen), is that girls impress boys by "looking pretty," and men impress girls by being good at chess and other, equally silly past-times. How very - cro-magnon. Perhaps we're not looking far enough back in history for the origins of chess; perhaps we need to take a fresh look at cave drawings to see if we can find a checkered board...

For your consideration: graphic, left, from the caves of Lascaux (Main Gallery), described as "polychromatic quadrangular signs". There are three of these "signs" centered across the bottom of this section of the Main Gallery at Lascaux. Those legs standing on two of the "signs" belong to a large black female bovine. Cro-magnon man says "Chess, anyone?"