Is There a Gender Gap in Chess? || Magnus Carlsen vs Judit Polgar
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 авг 2024
- Download Mproov and Improve Your Chess Today! app.mproov.me/...
Follow MprooV on Twitter / mproovapp Read professor Wei Ji Ma's article here en.chessbase.c...
Follow me on Instagram and Twitter for extra content and notifications / agadmator
/ agadmator
Magnus Carlsen vs Judit Polgar
Cuadrangular UNAM (2012) (rapid), Mexico City MEX, rd 2, Nov-25
King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation. Rare Defenses (E90)
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. d4 O-O 6. h3 e5 7. d5 Na6 8. Be3 Qe8 9. g4 Nc5 10. Nd2 a5 11. Be2 c6 12. Rg1 Kh8 13. h4 Ng8 14. Qc2 Bd7 15. O-O-O cd5 16. Nd5 Ne6 17. h5 g5 18. Kb1 Ba4 19. b3 Bc6 20. Nb6 Rd8 21. Qc3 Nf4 22. Bf1 h6 23. Qa5 f5 24. gf5 Qh5 25. Re1 Nf6 26. Nd5 Ra8 27. Qb4 Rfd8 28. f3 Qh4 29. Rc1 Bd5 30. cd5 N4d5 31. Bg5 Qg5 32. Rg5 Nb4 33. Rg2 d5 34. ed5 Nfd5 35. Ne4 Ne3 36. f6 Bf8 37. Rh2 Rac8 38. Bc4 Nc4 39. bc4 Kg8 40. Rb2 Rc7 41. c5 Nd3 42. Rd2 Rcd7 43. c6 bc6 44. Rc6 Kf7 45. Rb6 Nc5 46. Rd7 Rd7 47. Nf2 h5 48. Rc6 Rd2 49. Nh3 Ne6 50. a4 Rh2
Read more about this tournament here en.chessbase.c...
Check out agadmator's merch here teespring.com/...
teespring.com/...
Mailbox where you can send stuff:
Antonio Radić
AGADMATOR d.o.o.
Franje Tuđmana 12
Croatia
48260 Križevci
p.s. this is not my home address :)
Contact me: agadmatormanga@gmail.com or agadmator@gmail.com
Download agadmator chess clock for iOS here apps.apple.com...
Download agadmator chess clock for Android here play.google.co...
Support fishnet here lichess.org/ge...
Video created by OBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you realllly enjoy my content, you're welcome to support me and my channel with a small donation via PayPal or Crypto.
Link to PayPal donation www.paypal.me/...
Maiar Wallet @agadmator or get.maiar.com/...
BTC address bc1qckd3ut0hqyymzv33eus97ld8klj02xhk2kcwld
BCH address qzmfclyn69hqhjslls40r7r0dsttwe3tcsl946w4fr
LTC address Laarf1RmvCpLt2BcSwC1PBLG3hRC4HjBrz
NANO nano_1h1kgfaq88t1btwadqzx73rbha5hwbb88sxmfns851kwj8hnosdj51w388xx
Monero 4AdvvqmC4xhPyyRSAEDxTTAoXdxAtX2Py6b8Eh4EQzBLGbgo5rY5Khcap1x76JrDJH87yibAE9b6TPwTsvBAiFFCLtM8Be7
For any other currency address, contact me via agadmator@gmail.com
Check out some of the books I enjoy www.amazon.com...
Check out ALL my videos here • You Snooze, You Lose |...
Facebook: / agadmatoryoutube
Twitter: / agadmator
Instagram: / agadmator
Lichess: lichess.org/@/...
Chess.com: agadmator
League of Legends: agadmator (EUNE, my friend is using my EUWE account for a couple of years now)
Blizzard: agadmator #2992
Join our Discord Server here / discord
p.s. if you work in Twitter or Instagram, help me get Verified :) "Watch me without ads on your Amazon devices (bit.ly/Agadmat...) and Roku TV (bit.ly/Agadmat...)
"Feel free to pause the video and win this game for Judit"
So this is Judit Polgar outsmarting Magnus Carlsen, and you expect _me_ to figure it out?
"There is clearly nothing to do here" :D
Yup u will get a million year's bonus lol
for those of you who just want to enjoy the show
@Marshall Jonyou've been spamming RUclips with the first comment saying there's a software for hack and serving comment saying it worked. The most obvious thing ever. Nobody cares about your software
Nothing is impossible my friend
Agadmator on Carlsen :And of course Magnus loses the queen
Agadmator on Other players :And of course he loses the queen and the game
You don't need a queen in chess.
Magnus is the legend
@@LeventK I'm sure viewers of Agadmator's channel know that. He shows a Tal game at every milestone.
@@LeventK but it sure helps a lot 🤷🏽♀️
@@LeventK only if you have compensation ,a queen can be undoubtedly so strong
Using the young Magnus picture. Not the engine choice, but playable.
This comment 😂😂
This photo has never been taken again...
Isn’t that the correct photo/age he was at the time of the tournament?
@@gaussdog yes it is i don’t know why this guy in confused
HaHAAA
Judit is pure class. Seen her play in Adelaide 87' Austraian Open, she spoke to me briefly told me 500 minitures in the Kings Gamit was worth studying.
There is a gap between Magnus and whoever he plays.
Magnus's gender is chess.
0:00 Hello everyone
0:53 16:19 19:41 20:44 Article in the description
1:28 Getting back to this game
1:45 Sorry about that
3:18 Captures captures 9:58 Main idea of the capture-fest
4:23 Strike in the centre
5:06 Never been reached again
5:17 5:48 7:29 11:22 13:12 Bust open the position
5:38 Nice dog lift
5:57 Nice prophylactic move
8:14 Monster knight
8:59 One improvement too many
9:03 9:06 Completely lost
9:16 14:17 Give you a couple of seconds
9:26 14:28 Enjoy the show
10:07 Double attack
11:17 agadmator rap
11:29 Activity above all
12:44 Double up rooks on the d file
14:35 14:59 Nothing more to be done
14:37 14:45 It was in this position
15:16 20:01 So yeah
17:02 Lifetime record
17:43 Magnus is an anomaly - he's like Neo
18:28 Top 100 players of July 2005
20:36 Morphy saga
First of all Assigning ELO rating as a random distribution itself is a flawed assumption. And the prof just went on off that flawed assumption so that conclusion is not credible. I don't know if there is or isn't a gender gap in chess, but until it's not proven I won't believe it.
@@dimitridimitri6994 www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/women-beat-expectations-when-playing-chess-against-men.html
It seems that there is a “gender gap” from all metrics. Even stereotype threat can’t explain the difference. I think it just comes down to innate and subtle differences in the way men and women think.
Ah I see you're a fellow kripparino
@@JoeARedHawk275 Methinks the 11% bigger male brain might have something to do with it. Or that the vast majority of the smartest people in the world are men. Something like 95% of the smartest 1% are male.
@@RealCurrencies Yeah, that goes back to the differences between men and women. Asians also have on average, a larger brain as well, so it wouldn’t surprise me if bigger brain=more processing power.
Wow! Opening theory really has developed so much in just 8 years! Thank for the vid agad!
Stockfish says hi
Thanks to chess engines right?
@@marover yes
I will definitely agree that it is in fact the best tool to practice, but you only remembering variations/moves against specific oponent sometimes, there is no furtherplay as you haven't checked or tested counter attacks with the engine(if the game continues not exactly what you planned). I love this game, being able to practice truly on your own and then implement different ideas based on your experience rather than best moves that are memorised gives you the best feeling in the game, when you destroy someone completely by implementing general knowledge during the game. Great feeling.
I should probably modify your comment by adding the word "engine" before "opening theory"
"In those days" like it's a Morphy game
This is the good stuff
@@thegorn well played
You’re hearing that under the wrong context... It’s not in the sense that he thinks 8 years is a ‘long time ago’, it’s because chess theory has evolved so much in the last decade (largely due to engines) and it’s because of this that in 2012, chess was played and looked at differently compared to today’s games; hence “in those days”.
@@ballaking1000 So yeah, I do have the context correct.
@@jesusthroughmary Clearly not, given your OP.
"Lots of men have a worse record against Carlsen." Indeed.
I haven't lost a single game against him.
@@squealer42 He did say lots of men & did not say all the men who play chess.
@@ns7379 whoosh
@@somebody700 If you and Magnus played your best against each other a dozen times, and you won once, would you think you're probably pretty good?
Like who?
the Polgar/Kramnik commentary on the Norway tournament was great, Judit definitely knows her stuff.
Of course she knows her stuff. 2700+ peak rating is a super GM.
Robert Johnson absolutely, but even after not completing for years she’s still does fantastic commentary, I hope she does more of it in the future.
knows her stuff is an understatement. She was a top 8 player in the world
@Craig Jones totally agree i enjoyed them on commentary.
I absolutely love her analysis and commentary of the elite competitions. It would be wonderful to see her involved even more regularly. Primarily, she is a joy to watch in such a role. She is also such a role model for us everywhere as well!
People in hospital: What is going to happen to me?!?!?
Agadmator in hospital: This is such a great article about chess :)
The argument in the article also explains, for example, why there is an apparent performance gap between, say, Indian men and Irish men. Here in Ireland, chess is just not very popular. To start with, there are only a few million people in the country. Very few of them play the game, fewer take it seriously, and most have no idea who Magnus Carlsen is or that they even play chess in Norway! India, on the other hand, has a huge population and is the original home of chess. You do the maths.
@@ryanflanagan9624 Hey man, it's not right to make fun of religious people like that. Even if you think their mythology is absurd and you laugh at it, there are people who really believe what you've said. Real people, with their virtues and defects, with their worldviews shaped by the society in which they live. *It could happen to you* if you were born into a family whose members were believers in that god. You might even have been born into a family of Scientologists or Muslims or followers of the monkey god Hanuman. So have more respect for those who have been victims of religious indoctrination and do not mock them by writing down their beliefs in that way.
@@vejeke Let him be...I couldn't even understand most of what he tried to say. Also, a correction, there's no specific followers of Hanuman. He's one of the gods out of many. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Hinduism has lots of gods and goddesses. Kind of like the Greek mythology, or the Egyptian, or Norse mythology. Also, I actually disagree with the article. The article starts by speculating that the basis for measurement of the gap shouldn't be the strongest players, and later on goes to present a trial of statistical data, (where he used the wrong audience, which was non juniors indian women, instead of all women) and produced misinterpreted results. The gap is evident. It's also expected. The sample taken was wrong. Why should it be participation, and not the actual pop size? When you do take actual pop size, you'll see the gap even if you use the sample group he used.
@@ryanflanagan9624 jesus and god is not real kekw
and shockingly enough the best male irish chess player is higher rated than the best indian female despite there being way more indian female chess players than there are irish males :^)
@@resiliencevideos I don't think that's true. Sam Collins has a FIDE rating of 2456, while Humpy Koneru is 2618 (and Dronavalli Harika is 2484).
The last time I won a game of chess , was when my opponent had to leave because his mum had to pick him up
and it was in that position when opponent chose to resign
You mean you've actually won a game of chess? T_T
and don´t forget her sisters, back in the days the Polgar family for sure was the strongest family team, ^^
As a scientist myself, I really like the article. It makes a lot of sense. Comparing indeed has to be based on concrete statistical evidence. I congratulate Prof. Ma on an excellent assessment and thanks Antonio for bringing this up.
That's interesting. Tell me, as a scientist that you are, how big of a population do you need to get women in the top ten? A billion? A trillion? Millions and millions of women have been playing chess since the invention of the game. Yet over hundreds of years only Judith Polgar earns a spot in the top ten. How much bigger of a sample size do you need? And, as a scientist please tell me when statistical correlation began to replace empirical evidence?
Based on sample and population size how many Norwegians should be in the top ten chess players list?
@Daniel Burke . Of course. People love repeating garbage they don't understand themselves.
white: Kb1
Agadmator: "It`s prophylactic"
well you never know what might be lurking behind the corner
The article makes sense to me. Because women are underrepresented in chess, their chances of having top players equal with the men's top players is much less. I like the author's analysis. Good job, Wei Ji Ma. And thanks for the video and passing along the article, Agadmator. Great to expand the vast knowledge further. Especially concerning equality and sameness among gender.
Millions of women play chess. How many more women should play chess to get one in the top 10? A billion? A trillion?
Judit is one of my favourite players because of the way she plays not because of anything else.
"Comparison is the death of joy" Theodore Roosevelt
Me: I would play F3 in this position.
Agadmator: "So carson played F3 and his position was completely lost."
Me: ......
Thief of joy*
"Comparison is the death of joy"
That's just a corollary of the old "ignorance is bliss."
Both are philosophy for babies.
Agad was uncomfortable saying that Magnus resigned 😂😂😂 as he could not believe it.
Same here😂😂 Whenever I see magnus in the title, my mind already assumes the winner😀😀
spoiler alert
wtf..... that attack from judit was insane. one of the best 'pause the video' moves i've seen on this channel wow
The statistics Wei Ji Ma outlines in his article are absolute gold. When thinking about the proportion gap of women to men in chess, I get very upset about anyone thinking less about women's abilities. Statistically speaking, there is a woman who is just as capable at performing at the level that Magnus Carlsen does. Tragically, because so many less girls and women are brought up playing chess, she has not been discovered yet. I say that knowing full well just how much of a statistical anomaly Magnus Carlsen is.
Wrong.The article is only examining India, where the difference appears to be as expected due to participation. However, India appears to be the anomaly. A critique was done of said article which analyzed the top 20 countries in the world and found that in 16-18 of the 20 countries men outperform women much more than what is expected just due to participation.
Read: josecamachocollados.medium.com/the-gender-gap-in-top-level-chess-15591d8990ba
Thanks. The Judit saga would be cool one day.
Someone proposed the same, up, maybe you can give him /her a like? I hope we get it.
Yes, that's a great #suggestion. Her attacking style is so straightforward and logical that I feel I could put her ideas to use in some of my games. In that sense, she is more of a practical inspiration than some of the players whose moves are exceedingly esoteric.
I picked Judit in Agad's last "Saga" poll. Not disappointed that Morphy won, though.
Karpov saga ftw
@@petewest3122 Same! I've been loving the Morphy saga. It sounds like Agadmator is planning to do Judit's in the future, as well as Karpov's. They're all going to be great, so I don't really care what order we get them in.
#Suggestion - The Judit Polgar Saga
Up
I voted for her Saga last time. Her games are so fun to watch and she is SUCH A LEGEND!
yea
No
Upvote please
Atlast someone who really tried to understand the reason behind gender gap rather than just jumping into the conclusion of superiority because of biology. Hats off to Wei Ji Ma. 👏
Good article :-) I'm glad they made a distinction between a performance gap and participation gap.
Everyone should be encouraged to learn/play chess
As someone who's studying mathematics I hear about the gender gap in mathematics (also a logic based thing) from time to time.
Last time I heard about it from a fellow math student (girl) and she was going to a meeting discussing how to get more women in math, (she went to one or two of those meeting before). She mentioned: "there are less women and nobody knows exactly why."
The theory she had about the gap was the following: The 2 main factors why there are less girls are social pressure (from other girls) and the difference in how girls and boys are raised.
To expand: math (and chess) are seen as boy thing and girls get more social pressure (mainly coming from other girls, but not exclusively) to do girl accepted studies, (and maybe are more susceptible to social pressure).
The ability to do cold hard logic/abstract thinking/calculating can be trained, and toys like Lego (or other things that help) are almost all boys toys, so the boys have a head start. And since almost everybody does what they are good in this very early headstart makes a lot of difference.
Your friend forgot one theory. Maybe women on average are just not as interested in mathematics as men
That sounds exactly like how a university student would approach that.... But maybe men aren't women and women aren't men, and they shouldn't be treated the same and have all the same interests and needs, and that's okay? Women don't like math because they don't need to, it's just biology. There are outliers of course, but 99.9% of women aren't built for that stuff.
@@coconut6743 I absolutely agree with that, men are just more interested in math, and that leads to better results. It just isn't clear if the lesser interest is inherent to women, caused by the theorized factors, or a combination of both.
Edit: typo
@@michae976 That could be, the 99.9% figure is definitely way to high (I would say 70%). It just is unclear if the difference is really biological.
I personally think it is, then because the way we raise boys and girls has evolved such that boys are trained in stuff boys are on average better in, and the same for girls. This is a good thing, but it also exemplifies differences between boys and girls that biological may be a good bit smaller.
One thing you ppl don't notice is the evolution and it's effect on our brains. For the last tens of thousands of years, men had different tasks than women. A man would simply start one task, finish it and start another. Hunting or growing some crops is an example of that. In the meantime, for the same period of time, women had to simultaneously take care of kids, prepare food, keep the fire burning, check if it's safe around the house, all of that in the same time.
Excellent Article! Can't argue with Math! Professor Ma has simplified it such that it is extremely easy to follow! Simply put he proves very logically "under-representation automatically leads to underachievement" if we go by the highest achievement
What about female underrepresentaion in weight lifting? Using similar data sets we could conclude that the reason women dont lift as much weight is because of sexism or whatever
You can argue math
AGADMATOR. Welcome back Antonio. I love any Polgar game. Aside: the expression is "lurking 'AROUND' the corner" GOOD LUCK!!
Even though Judit is past her prime, I love her attacking style!
Magnus Carlsen looks like a 14 year old in 2014 😂
the things a beard does to you..
2012 right? or was the pic taken in 2014?
Nerd
@@Nirgranth I guess 2012
Oh yeah, and his voice was shrill as well like me.
The queen can roam the board in a move, the king can move only one square at a time, sure there's a gap.
Good one.
Proof that a queen cannot be raped unless she wants it.
"I'm gonna pretend I've fallen and hurt my knee so he can catch me..."
@@cinegraphics 😐
@@cinegraphics what are you on about?
@@trollmallow924 the queen is fast. The king is slow. Hence, he can't catch her unless she wants it.
NVM. It was a joke. Forget it.
I would absolutely love to see a saga on Judith Polgar. Its easy to admire the #1 rated player in the world but as you stated Polgar is an anomaly herself and should be respected just as much as the top player in the world. Her achievements in chess are no less impressive.
Rather, they're more.
Upvote!!
#suggestion Judit Polgar saga!!
Polgar sisters saga!!! I've seen quite a few impressive games, even if Zsuzza and Zsofia didn't get to the ability that Judit displayed.
Nah. She deserves the recognition for being a strong player, but she doesn't get to have herself elevated to unearned heights because she isn't a man.
Judit is a legend. Still running circles around other commentators for big matches.
Except when she’s paired up with a co-commentator like Anish Giri as in the recent FIDE WC match between Carlsen and Nepo, where she was clearly unable to comprehend and explain ca. 2800 level chess thinking. Let’s honor her for what she actually achieved in chess history as a woman but let’s not exaggerate her actual level of chess talent.
@@thernly wym she peaked at top 8 in the world. it's just about how much chess has changed since she used to play seriously and nowadays, where people can run games through supercomputers and memorize lines that go 20, 30 moves into the game. the entire pro chess community just got way better because of computers, and she doesn't play anymore so she didn't make an effort to catch up with how things are done nowadays.
@@bloxxerhunt1566 Don’t be an idiot. This has nothing to do with technology advancing opening theory. It has to do with ability to see tactics. Judit is just an average GM now, mid-2500 strength, not unlike Yasser Seirawan. They were great and they are still good, but they can’t play or commentate at a 2800 level.
@@thernly Yes. Never said she's the best in the world or even close to it. It's just that computers made chess evolve at absurdly higher rates than before, and she didn't try to keep up because by that point she barely played.
@@bloxxerhunt1566 Just stop.
You get to hear 'And in this position, Magnus resigned the game' like once every 2 years.
@Aston Martin Duda
It feels like a bunch of the people commenting didn’t read the article
Actually, it seems like a bunch of people got fooled by the cherry picking in the article.
It is a stupid article.
Another factor to take into account is the difference in stamina between men and women, and we know how important that can be in chess as well as in many other sports.
17:46 "Magnus is the best chess player who ever lived" Finally, Agadmator revealed his opinion on the GOAT's discussion. 🌹🐐😍
it's not a matter of opinion really, it's the objective truth, i'm not a fan of his style of play but he's been literally number 1 for years and the highest rated ever
@@nombreapellido519 meh, different people have different standards for who is GOAT
In term of total skill yes but in terms of dominance Fischer and Morphy are unmatched. Every generation has more knowledge than the last.
Kasparov had an interesting discussion with Lex Fridman (look it up) where he basically said that "Carlsen is a lethal combination of Karpov and Fischer". Carlsen IS the goat, but it's also thanks to his predecessors that he's able to reach such level of play.
@@nombreapellido519 Obviously, he is not.
regarding the article, he can talk all day long about statistics and about "Indian women play as well as men on average", the fact is, that no one is interested in average chess, and in high level chess no woman except judit was able to compete vs man. when things are very simple there is no need to draw graphs and calculate statistics.
if there are less women participating in chess in the first place then there would be less women in the highest level as well
@@greenrico10 correct, but according to writer's mind set every now and than a woman who has the potential compete with man should pop up, but in reality one woman did that and it seems to stay that way for a long time.
@Jake G if that is the case that less women play therefore there is less women the gap between the genders should't be that big, and Should be to more women like judit.
As an actuary, I do a lot of work with stats. The article makes sense. The two graphs do a good job in showing why comparing numbers of top male and female players means nothing. The second graph definitely tells a story. If he wanted to take it a step further, he could do some statistical tests to see whether the male and female grades could come from the same underlying distribution but, to be honest, he's already transmitted 90% of the message with 10% of the work, so that's probably a good place to stop.
It does make sense but the data was cherrypicked, results would be very different in other countries. As I posted elsewhere:
I looked at
newratings.fide.com
Used advanced search and excluded inactive players. I used the ratings filter to know the amount of players by gender who had the following ratings or above:
2700: 0/36 (0%)
2650: 1/99 (1,01%)
2600: 1/234 (0,43%)
2550: 4/423 (0,95%)
2500: 12/729 (1,65%)
2450: 27/1216 (2,22%)
2400: 58/1967 (2,95%)
2350: 102/2994 (3,41%)
2300: 170/4334 (3,92%)
2250: 269/6063 (4,44%)
2200: 390/8421 (4,63%)
2150: 525/11433 (4,59%)
2100: 683/15137 (4,51%)
2050: 907/19562 (4,64%)
2000: 1175/24602 (4,78%)
Given you do work with statistics I guess you will agree that participation gap can not explain this difference in participation rates.
@@josepasensiofuertes5366 If the question is whether the small number of strong female players proves that there's a gender gap, I'm happy the original article with the graphs does enough to shoot this down.
If the question is whether there is a gender gap then (i) yes we need to do statistical tests, and (ii) yes we need to think hard about whether we're using the right data. For the data you provided in your comment, I did a "chi squared goodness of fit test at 5% significance level" and the test failed, suggesting the male and female distributions are not identical. I didn't look into why not, what the differences were, etc.
@@theartisticactuary Yeah... Not really. Even the article showed women outperformed men 32 elo points difference in average. If you check the s.d in male population you get 345. Now tell me what is the sample mean s.d for a sample size of 1145 individuals. 32 elo difference might look small but three standard deviations are really significant. I guess you can accept there is a gap there because it is women who do better in average. Well it turns out men do better in the top level after accounting for participation gap, did the same proceeding as mentioned in the previous paragraph only for India though:
2700: 0/3 (0%)
2600: 0/15 (0%)
2500: 2/38 (5,26%)
2400: 2/93 (2,15%)
2300: 13/177 (7,34%)
2200: 28/272(10,29%)
2100: 45/393 (11,45%)
2000: 65/543 (11,86%)
The author very conveniently simply said it was 1/20 (1st woman in 17th place) but did hid the real distribution on top level by graphing it with average distribution so that it all looked 0 anyways. Even though India has the world 2nd highest woman and 'only' the 16th highest rated man.
So, it is quite clear to be men's and women's distribution are different, even if they are roughly the same, which they are. Why? Who knows, but they are different for certain.
@@josepasensiofuertes5366 Feel free to press ahead with your statistical analysis. I've got a load of other problems to deal with at the moment so I'll leave you to it.
@@josepasensiofuertes5366 Crees que la hipótesis de la gran variabilidad masculina podría explicar esos resultados?
"Let’s say I have two groups, A and B. Group A has 10 people, group B has 2. Each of the 12 people gets randomly assigned a number between 1 and 100 (with replacement). Then I use the highest number in Group A as the score for Group A and the highest number in Group B as the score for Group B. On average, Group A will score 91.4 and Group B 67.2. The only difference between Groups A and B is the number of people. The larger group has more shots at a high score, so will on average get a higher score. The fair way to compare these unequally sized groups is by comparing their means (averages), not their top values. Of course, in this example, that would be 50 for both groups - no difference!"
----- excerpted from the linked article by Wei Ji Ma
When we talk about a gender gap in chess, it's not actually about how many people play it, or what their rating is. How I understand it is, there's just not enough strong women players. The higest rated players are all men. And the sample group isn't actually 10 v 2. It's more of 5.1 to 4.9. The sample gets further reduced to 10-2 due to how many women actually take interest in chess. That's not anybody's fault. It's just how it is. There's more opportunities for women, if anything.
Sadly women suffer the most because of harassment, not being able to go "by themselves" to play a tournament in another city if she's a teen(what does not(!!) happen to men), there's always a "aw you can't lose to a girl" type of guy; here there's a guy who never plays against women nor kids because he's clearly afraid of losing to them. There are many factors to be seen. This A and B group is a very interesting example of how it works for rating. But all the other details count too. I have no idea where you took that "4.9 and 5.1" from but you can look at any tournament around, there are way more men playing.
@@homero3928 what do you suggest as a solution?
@@VarunSingh-fx8pb Except, it fundamentally does come down to how many people (women) play it, as well as the sociological and cultural factors that come into play. Bottom line, the differences in the top male players, and the top female players can be explained by statistical analysis, given that total male players far outweigh female ones. I also have no idea why you're taking male/female pop. into account, that's not relevant whatsoever, only the percentage of players participating is. The fact that you think women would have more opportunities to succeed in chess than men really shows your limited understanding of gender roles/dynamics.
@@VarunSingh-fx8pb you should read the entire article
Keep in mind this is Carlsen's only loss ever against Judit Polgar in any time format. He is 11-1 with 5 draws
Judit in her prime is a bobby fischer, she would have crushed magnus
But we grow dude
@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 lol what
@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 Judit in her prime was rated 2735. Formidable, to be sure, and ratings do inflate, but a difference of 150 points in peak performance counts for something.
@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 . No
@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 your username conveys your credibility. thanks for the conformation. FYI Magnus is a monster.
There is a gap. But it's entirely due to the way people are raised. Boys are pushed to excel at games when girls are pushed away from even trying. The Polgars are a good example of that. If you raise your young girls to excel, well, they do.
Do u know how the misandry west education system discriminate AGAINST boys
Just because someone is backwards due to their own mentality doesn't deserve sympathy.
Magnus vs Polgar in Classical Format 2 - 0 with 1 draw
in Rapid/exhibitions it's 11 - 1
I would love a podcast episode with Judith
Seems so weird a 2012 game so recent but Agad keeps saying "these days the most popular is blah blah blah but back in those days" lmao 😅
#suggestion Toni you should do Zukertort's immortal vs Blackburne in 1883 🙂
The effect of engines rapidly becoming more powerful.
I don't think I've seen any Zukertort game on this channel, now that you mention it.
Right. That was my initial reaction, "those days" as though 2012 was as distant in time as the 19th century. I guess the impact of the engines really has had that big an impact on tactics, making everything before them obsolete. Something along the lines of the horse and the automobile.
Its only funny to ignorants who don't understand the impact that chess engines and now AI have had on chess over the past decade. But please by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.
@@staypositive4358 Obvious troll is obvious 😅 such negativity for an account called "stay positive" 🤣
@@Camberwell86 . You must enjoy posting idiotic comments then laughing at yourself. Everyone is laughing at you son.
The real Harmon, from Queen’s gambit series, love Judith’s games.
Judit*
@@m0skit0
Apologies
I want an introduction to the dog that’s always in the background of your videos.
There’s a huge participation and cultural gap. People used to think during the British colonial period that Indians were less intelligent and not capable of competing with British chess masters, it took centuries for that to change. Young girls simply aren’t encouraged to participate in chess clubs from a young age compared to boys, that’s really all there is to it.
encouragement from others isn't required... you are naturally drawn to the things in life you have the potential to be good at...women instinctively know that chess is not something that is playing to their strengths.
Judit was really an amazing chess player. I watch her games and I'm always blown away
She was still steadily climbing the ratings in 2005 but then she had a kid in 2006 and took a step back from chess. She was one of the greatest attacking players of her era. I often wonder if she could have been a serious contender for world champion if she hadn't decided to focus on raising a family.
@@SpiceWeazel haha. She wouldn't stand a chance at the WC xd
@Blondymonk Why not? Her rating was still climbing, who knows what she could have accomplished? I'm not saying she was a shoe-in, but she was throwing hands with the best.
@@SpiceWeazeljudit would have won easily but I suppect the cheating in chess world maybe made her give up entirely
There actually is an issue with comparing avarages as well, if you want to measure potential vs avarage that's another story. It all matters what you would want to measure.
There is also an issue of comparing genders from avarages from an underrepresented group. You could argue that the avarage female player who actively play are more intrested and invested in chess compared to a male, but that's also hard to measure.
EDIT: Having gotten several nasty PM's, no I'm not saying men are better than women, but just saying the article doesn't supply the full image.
And though the actual distributions were eventually compared and shown to be very similar, there was no explicit mention of variance (or higher moments) for some reason. Two distributions could easily have the same average, but different variance, leading to a huge difference in the tails.
@@42mateos Yeah that was also my immediate thought when I read the article. It is well established that men have a wider spread concerning IQ than women, therefore one would expect to have more exceptionally gifted male players. Of course, when taking the average over thousands of players these few outliers won't affect the outcome. So the approach to just compare the averages does miss out on some key features when comparing individiual strength between these two groups.
@UCN0Gjm7wPnad5jQaZr0LVvQ He is talking about "greater male variability hypothesis". But to claim that this theory is "well established" is pushing it. Since newer studies have shown that male variance compared to female is decreasing. And it is not true in the entire world. Some studies have shown the opposite in different countries.
@@42mateos The distributions where compared. They overlay. There isn't any evidence of a difference there. The onus is on those who want to say the two groups differ.
Nice discussion and valid points made about only looking at averages, but I think the graphical representation of the distributions of the ratings of the 2 populations makes it clear that the shape of the curves are roughly the same, meaning that any differences between the groups is more likely derived from chance than a real difference between the actual difference ability between the 2 genders.
I didn’t know you we’re having medical problems. Glad to hear that you’re recovered and doing well.
I read the article so you don't have (but you should in case you wanna quote it) :
-Wei Ji Ma correctly judges the indian article as of little worth from a scientific point of view and clearly explains why
-His analysis is interesting and mathematically sound However :
- He assumes from the start that men and women follow the same Gaussian distribution in terms of skills which is the exact thing he wants to prove. In my opinion he should have taken two different Gaussian distribution for men and women based on previous results and then performed statistical experiment
-Wei Ji Ma's article is filled with personal liberal takes (which does not necessarily discredite the whole article), for instance he says that women are overperforming since they are statistically on par with men but should be lower because of gender discrimination (proof is left as an exercise for the reader)
CONCLUSION : Wei Ji Ma demonstrated that if the skill of Indian men and women who play chess follow the same Gaussian distribution then the underperformance of women is only due to their small number in size. It's not a definite proof of anything but it's an interesting thing to know. Personnaly I somewhat revised my judgement on women being less good than men in chess
POTENTIAL CAVEAT : Wei Ji Ma might have cherry picked India because the data fits with his view. However since he was answering to an Indian article I'm gonna assume it's not the case.
He is testing the null hypothesis (men and women having the same skill distribution), and showing that results in India are consistent with that, due to the two samples being unbalanced in numbers.
That doesn't prove that the null hypothesis is correct.
That proves there isn't enough evidence to statistically argue that a gender-skill imbalance exists.
The issue that no one seems to want to address is that over the history of the game and millions upon millions of women that have played the game only one woman has achieved a spot with the top ten players in the world. How much bigger of a female sample size do we need to get a couple of more women in the top ten? A billion? A trillion? I'm not buying that population size is the problem. There is more to this story but it seems that nobody has the balls to address it with actual real science. Statistics is not science and correlation doesn't equate to causation. That's like saying that Norwegians should not be in the top ten because of their relative population size in the chess world. But guess where Magnus Carlsen is from? You sound like a man that knows math so I'm sure you can agree with at least this last part.
@@staypositive4358 Some truth in there, but you are missing such a large part of why women aren't as represented or as high ranked in chess - it is a male dominated sport! Academia/intellecutal societies and industries have always been male dominated, as far back as the greeks, and for women to break into literal milleniums of prejudice and oppression is not easy! We are only now really starting to see it. For example, you can see it in similar fields such as physics and mathematics - historically male dominated fields - but only recently with more and more female representation we are seeing more and more noteworthy discoveries and figures arising in the last century. Similarly, in chess, for so long women have scarcely been allowed to play, and only now are we seeing a rise. The number of female chess players 100 years ago would be a fraction of what it is now, but in those 100 years we have seen a stark rise in number and ranking of those female players. They are populating this game and building resources for females that were previously either only available to men are came with a lot of discrimination. 100 years further down the line, as social norms change and women are seen to be more and more common in intellecutal fields, the results will definetly be a more equally disitributed rating of men and women players.
@@cccrit it's the same reason as why guys always dominate E-sports. It's because they're crazy enough to put so much time in playing the games.
The author made no a priori assumptions regarding the distributions of scores between male and female players. The very first graphs in the article show those distributions, as pulled from the data - no assumptions necessary.
Thanks @agadmator for this video. I have been waiting for the matches between Judit and Magnus. Please do more games between them
I really enjoyed the game, the video, and the article. I'm kind of disappointed in some of the comments here who clearly either didn't read the article or did not think deeply about the methods that Wei Ji described. Statistics can be confusing, counter-intuitive, and sometimes difficult to grasp. Instead of asking for help with these concepts, many people are carrying on like they are experts in statistics and Wei Ji is some random internet dude rather than the other way around.
Statistics can mean nothing also
Well he separate men and women
And this is the most significant mistake
Any women can play with men
No restrictions. Judith did
Whereas his statistical analysis makes sense, I don't necessarily believe the underlying assumption. The underlying claim is that there is equal capability between the sexes, and that only a very small proportion of women decide to continue playing (due to social factors) thereby filtering out some WC winning women. I'd say any person so naturally gifted at chess as to be a wc winner would be highly unlikely to turn away from it. So I severely doubt there are wc capable women winners out there that just decided to not compete for whatever reason.
If I'm not mistaken at the junior level the participation gap is a lot smaller. So isn't then more likely that there are just far fewer women good enough to compete at the competitive level? And simply noone good enough to challenge for the title?
@@MrOod67 I don't think you have the underlying assumption right. As I read it, the underlying assumption is that "there is no difference in innate chess ability between men and women, and comparisons of the best men to the best women are flawed because around 95% of the observed difference in rating is explained by participation rates." You are adding in a second argument about the nature of those participation rates, that participation rates are different because boys and girls drop out of chess at different rates. This does not appear to be true, quoting from the paper cited by Wei Ji: "Whatever the final resolution of these debates, there is little empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of differential drop-out rates between males and females. A recent study of 647 young chess players, matched for initial skill, age and initial activity found that drop-out rates for boys and girls were similar."
I can't find any listing of junior players, but personally I would be shocked to find more than 30% girls in any sufficiently large such listing. Would love to be proven wrong. Even if it were the case that junior groups were more gender-balanced, there are a variety of other reasons that girls and women may underperform that have nothing to do with intelligence or innate ability. This article looks at the performance of equally-skilled men and women and finds that when equally-skilled women play each other, they will each win 50% of decisive games on average. But when equally-skilled men and women play each other, women win only 46% of decisive games, equivalent to a ~30 elo point differential. They propose stereotype threat as a possible cause for this discrepancy:
www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/what-a-game-of-chess-can-tell-us-about-the-gender-gap
In general, I think it's really naïve to think that we can separate the performance of women and girls in historically male-dominated intellectual endeavors from cultural context. A talent no less than Susan Polgar as late as 1984 was muscled out of even participating in the Zonal, despite having qualified, solely because she is a woman. The attitudes that underlay that decision remain prevalent in society. Less so today, but as the comments here indicate, far from rare. I would suggest that if people have a burning desire to know whether men and women have equal aptitude at chess, the best way to do that would be:
1) Do not assume the opposite. Assume that men and women, boys and girls, have equal ability.
2) Actively encourage women and girls you know to take up chess.
3) Talk to women and girls who already play chess and listen to what they have to say about how we can encourage more participation from other women and girls in chess. A great start is this article by Susan Polgar:
gamesmaven.io/chessdailynews/womens/the-difference-between-boys-and-girls-in-chess-JFxXLtikMkuMMRE2_g0q0A
I remember Magnus in those days. He was like Morphy reincarnated in our era. He used to level the playing field many times over against some extraordinary GMs...🤷🏻♂️
So glad to see you fully back on your feet. I know you monitor these comments, or rather I hope you do. Best wishes from Australia. Thanks agadmator
Who else is here that doesn’t understand chess but finds it interesting
I actually started playing after watching these videos for a while. It's far more interesting now that I heard some ideas from the videos. Also i recommend lichess both the app and website works great. Ad free open source etc
That is if you ever want to play
“Magnus Carlsen is like Neo”. I like that XD.
Hey agad, you are looking more thinner these days
Hope you are in good health 🤗❤️🔥
he goes to the gym💪😎
Thinner doesn’t mean healthier
@@Andrewkosche I know that's why I said that I hope he is in good health
@@Andrewkosche Thanks for the newsflash.
@@carbyte2673 well a lot of people don’t know that and that mentality can catalyze many eating disorders
The article insists that comparisons on the top players in unevenly distributed groups is useless and that you must compare averages. This video, however, compares top players, so it is an interesting pairing of ideas! I hope the new Netflix show inspires more women to play Chess (I haven't watched yet, btw).
Judith left a big gap. But she is still a monster of a player. It was fun to watch her comment the tournament in Norway along Kramnik. More than once she destroyed him in the analysis.
I was once a predictive modeler for part of my job, so I have taken a lot of statistics compared to most lay people. I don't have a PhD in statistics, but I can tell you that Professor Wei Ji Ma's analysis is both correct and not that complex. In other words, doing this analysis wasn't all that complicated, so anyone writing on the topic should have been able to reach the same conclusion fairly simply. That's his point -- the "reporters" or whomever are going off folklore and/or simplistic rationalizations.
There are many activities that have a huge difference in male/female participation across all cultures. Some of these are professional and some are hobbies. Chess is one of many examples of such a disparity when there is no known reason or informed hypothesis that the gap would be due to biological/anatomical differences. It isn't a unique situation.
Thanks for the insight
At least one stays guy
Great insight
Aren't there a lot of examples, even research. showing that the genders really do follow different interests? I think this refusal to consider that any gap in participation could arise from something deeper than societal queues is it's own bias. Basically I think there is actually an informed hypotheses for differences in pursuits between the genders and the author present''s that as folk psychology which is basically not even honest.
no known hypothesis? Are you serious? Men and women evolved differently..... we are different physically and mentally due to the differences in the gender roles for millions of years. Chess requires high levels of problem solving, creativity, abstract thinking etc which men are absolutely superior at performing, as they spent more time involved with these kind of tasks as we evolved as a species.
Fascinating videos u make!!! u improved so much in the way u entertain us, and help us improve our games....
For what it's worth, I'm doing a PhD in statistics and totally approve Dr. Wei Ji's analysis.
It's not worth much. This kinda fallacious argument should be named so i can more easily call out how silly the reasoning is
@@johnj1646 It's called argumentum ad verecundiam, and just because it is an appeal to authority doesn't automatically make it fallacious.
@@davidbellamy1388 no, im talking about the way he jumps ypu through hoops with his statistics that dont actually prove anything. You're either both know exactly what i mean and you're being subversive or you're terrible at applying your cute little math tricks to the real world
Wait, you read that article in 3 minutes? You read very fast! It took me about 13.
What do you mean Magnus was a beast in 2012?? Magnus was a beast even as a fetus 😂😂😂
I read the article and agreed to the statistical presentation, except his closing words "taking into account the systemic injustices and biases that they had to overcome to get where they are, they are likely overperforming.", this closing argument is hard to prove but also disprove since there are no rules against female players and any form of "injustice, bias or discrimination" would come from a subjective perspective rather a measurable objective one.
The only rule i can recall directly targeting women in chess would be the dressing code that asks for no clevage but then again the same dressing core rules applies to men in regards to shirts, caps and pants.
Socioeconomic injustices and discrimination are easily measured and identifiable. I think you misunderstood the quote to mean that those elements exist within Fide rules rather than in the Countries where the players originate from. Think about a player like Alireza from comes from Iran; it's not hard to understand why there isn't an Iranian female counterpart.
You don't even need to cherry pick a country like Iran to understand the structurally imposed plight of women in the world. The United States is still squabbling over women's rights pertaining to abortion -- something that should be an archaic discussion and a secured right/law.
Just because there aren't explicitly rules targeting women does not mean there are not barriers to entry. given the environment and history of chess as a mostly male environment, it seems pretty easy to see how things would be tilted against woman participation.
The article proves absolutely nothing and his extra assumptions come across as pandering although he might have been asked to include those in order to get the article posted.
There are plenty of women's accounts where the barrier to entry for girls is much much higher. Weird looks, comments, cold treatment - ie shunning/'you dont belong here' creates a hostile environment that drives targeted individuals away. Afterall if you tried to play a sport at school club/team and everyone were laughing at you and offer 0 support why would you ever come back? Average person would find something better to do, only driven 'fuck you, I will show you I am better' person is likely to stick around.
I don't know if that common behaviour was X years ago or if it is still happening broadly these days but the current chess scene is reflection of last 10/20 years?
Even if all chess clubs and player changed and dropped all prejudices, it will take a long time for those new player to seed the statistics.
Does anyone know why Hungary is abbreviated as “THEIR” in the rankings at 18:30?
If you google the title of the page and go to the FIDE site it's HUN now, so no idea. Maybe his browser tried to auto-translate or something, a few of the other countries are messed up too
It's weird to think some things weren't known in chess just 8 years ago. Some people must have known at least.
Personally, for women to rise, the female only chess tortunaments need to be ended. The Women's chess tortunaments are like playing a computer game on medium difficulty and passing through alright while having major weaknesses. Men play on the highest difficulty where every mistake is heavily punished, they turn into little robots and are great under the constant pressure. Then those two meet and woman gets completely slaughtered because she was used to the medium difficulty BUT now was forced to play on hardest difficulty - for her it was something different, she was not used to WHILE for the man it was every day experience.
In other words, in order for women to rise, they need to be integrated with men in the same tortunaments. In the beginning they will get owned but over time they will get used to it and rise. There is of course the method of shaming men and giving excuses how patriarchal the chess world once was which leads to nowhere.
Yes, but more interestingly, why are women tournaments on a lower skill level
I think this is a silly idea. Women can already enter plenty of open tournaments. If they want to enter female only tournaments, that's fine.
@@reaganabroad4952 Agreed, otherwise they wouldn't win any tournaments, and thus not get any tournament winnings, leading to even less women deciding to play chess competitively, leading to a vicious cycle and thus you would never get any equality in chess.
@@MrOod67 We don't need any equality. Man and woman are different, it implies a lot of inequalities. There is a lot of things women are better at, and no man have problem with that.
@@MrOod67 How exactly do you call the existence of tournaments limited by gender an "equality"? Looks to me like a step in a completely opposite direction.
Even if world championships are too tough, anyone can still win tournaments at a local level (which I'll be happy to see more of).
Well, the article mentioned a fairer comparison would be between the averages. However, while I admire it's intention, I disagree with its method. The average cannot be used to make a prediction of which group (gender) is better, or which excels the furthest.
Given that they mentioned the difference is due to rate of participation and inequalities in chess, it just isn't reflective of what actually exists without such mental/mathematical/hypothetical arguments.
Usain Bolt being the fastest man in the world is just that. We cannot try to account for differences in participation or an adjusted average for women to justify that he is in fact not really the fastest. In fact, he is the fastest in spite of inequality.
As a person with a Ph.D. in Mathematics I am often frustrated by statistical arguments. For those who are interested in improving their ability to recognize invalid arguments, I highly recommend Jordan Ellenberg's informative and entertaining "How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking".
Some commenters unhappy with Mr. Ma's conclusions are trying to dispute the validity of his calculations. I'm afraid they are misguided. He has correctly analyzed the likely properties of a random sample taken from his pool (all non-junior members of the Indian chess federation) with the same size as women in the pool. Such a group will, by virtue of its size, likely demonstrate the same statistical properties that are usually cited as evidence that women are inferior at chess. In particular, the observed ratings gap between the highest rated man and woman in the pool is not that surprising, given the number of women in the pool.
Mr. Ma is therefore correct when he asserts that citing these statistics as evidence of female inferiority at chess is a bogus argument. However, he goes overboard when he goes on to make statements like "what gender gap?", as if his analysis proves that women are equal to men in chess ability.
Here Mr. Ma falls prey to the most common mistake in probability related arguments, which is the assumption that a sample is random when it is not. The women in the pool are not a random sample of all women. Therefore the achievements of this group cannot be extrapolated as representative of all women.
I caution the reader against assuming that the women in the pool likely have more potential at chess than women outside the pool. There are many reasons why women might not be interested in chess other than a lack of ability or talent. It is my sad duty to remind you nerds that chess players (and mathematicians) as a group are not generally considered to be catnip.
@@somebody700 It's certainly true that omitting data that doesn't confirm your hypothesis creates misleading results. I was just commenting on the specific calculation in Mr. Ma's analysis, which I thought was interesting as far as it goes but actually doesn't prove much in either direction.
I agree with you that the implied conclusions (what gender gap?) are unsupported. But if your goal is to get people to question their assumptions, then I think the video was useful. Also, the fact that Judit Polgar was at one time rated inside the top 10 should lead people to question the widespread assumption that women cannot master chess at the highest level.
To me, the real question (which doesn't lend itself to statistical analysis) is what would happen if women as a whole were somehow interested/motivated to master chess in a way that is comparable to men. Would we then discover a woman more comparable to the world champion than Judit Polgar? I don't think we know the answer to this question.
@@somebody700 Sure, this video only demonstrates that Judit was able to win once against Magnus. That's still a pretty incredible achievement! Look, the point is not that this shows that women are equal to men at the highest level. What Judit's top ten rating does demonstrate is that women have the potential to achieve at the highest level, a point that seems to be in dispute.
I'm not trying to argue that gender-based cognitive differences don't exist or deny the observed differences in chess participation and achievement. It's obvious that more men become good chess players than women. I just don't believe that these statistics, by themselves, demonstrate a strong innate difference in chess ability. During the cold war all the top grandmasters were Russians (until Fischer came along). This was likely due to the fact that just about everyone in Russia plays chess and chess is taught in schools, not that Russians had some kind of super-chess gene.
Intuitively it seems like all men and women are equally welcome to play chess, and since only 5-10% as many women get good enough to play seriously, then that must be because "men are better at chess". But this conclusion relies on the implicit assumption that women self-select out of chess because of they lack ability. It is also possible that there are social factors that disproportionately discourage women who would be good at chess from pursuing chess seriously.
A chess gender gap might exist, but it's probably smaller than it appears.
Similar questions were raised about the lack of women in mathematics. People used to believe that this was simply a matter of skill - that women excel more in humanities and less in math, and that's what guides their choices. Nowadays we recognize that gender-based differences in mathematics achievement reflect a number of factors. One major factor is a country's level of gender equality and the prevalent societal gender stereotypes. In fact, the gender gap in mathematics among adolescents disappears in countries that are judged as completely gender equal.
That being said, research has shown that men and boys outperform women and girls significantly at one particular skill: mental rotation of 3D objects. It's possible that this skill may be strongly correlated with success at chess, as the ability to visualize future positions is clearly critical. And as you said, if men were better at chess that would be perfectly OK.
@@somebody700 www.pnas.org/content/106/26/10593
@agadmator The gist of the article is that if 96% of the participants are male, you'd expect more than 96% of the "top players" to be male by most measures based on pure chance. In fact, you'd expect roughly the results which he observed empirically, and to prove this you can simulate the ratings distribution by combining the two groups, selecting equally-sized groups at random, and observing the results. When you do this, you get results which very closely match those observed in reality. He also cites another article which gives more detail:
cognition.aau.at/download/Publikationen/Bilalic/Bilalic_etal_2009.pdf
on how the statistical methods work.
The key portion of that second paper is only a paragraph long:
"3. RESULTS
Figure 2 shows the real difference in rating for each of the top 100 pairs of male and female players, and the difference to be expected for each pair given the much larger number of male players. The expected superiority of male players varies from approximately 270 Elo points for the best male player to approximately 440 Elo points for the 100th. Figure 2 shows that, in fact, the top three women are better than would be expected. The next 70 pairs show a small but consistent advantage for men- their superiority over the corresponding female player is a little greater than would be expected purely from the relative numbers of male and female players. From approximately the 80th pair the advantage shifts. The female players are slightly better than would be expected. Averaged over the 100 top players, the expected male superiority is 341 Elo points and the real one is 353 points. Therefore 96 per cent of the observed difference between male and female players can be attributed to a simple statistical fact-the extreme values from a large sample are likely to be bigger than those from a small one."
Magnus vs Polgar in Classical Format 2 - 0 with 1 draw
in Rapid/exhibitions it's 11 - 1
Bruh, why is there hype when a woman wins *once* ?
Isn't that generally the case? It's SUCH A BIG DEAL when a woman does litteraly anything...
hey agad, i really appreciate how you engage in all aspects of chess and have the courage and engagemant to put a spotlight even on hard to talk about topics. i'm not a expert on statistics like some of the other commentators here so i'm not going to question the mesurements that were used in the article although his method seemed sound to me while reading it.
For me it comes down to this: If you would take 100 males and 100 females in a vacuum (eg. no social norms/restrictions etc.) and give them the same resources they would be equal in playing strength. And i really don't know how so many people have a problem with that assessment.
I almost forgot what Magnus looked when he was younger
I'd love more Judit videos!
yes! seems theres not much on the tubes involving her....? still digging but. ya. typical :/
Depends on what you call a gender gap. Ive heard that thru I.Q. perspective men and women are pretty much the same. But if you pick the people on the very top and the very low I.Q. spectrums, theyre mostly men. Something similar happens on the agressiveness perspective. It seems that men and women are similar, but if you pick the most agressive people the majority are men (and probably here lies the reason why most people in prison are men).
It doesnt mean in anyway that women or men have less or more value in sports, business, society, fashion, pedagogy.... But people are different, the average of groups is gonna be different. And thats ok, in general the top player will more often be a man, and the most comunicative person is gonna be a woman. And several other differences on the averages of the groups and there is no demerit in that.
There are intolerant people who will say that a woman is unable to play chess or football. Or say that a man cant dance ballet or some other modality. Still, denying differences is not the way. Acknowledging and tolerating the differences is what being pro-diversity is about.
I do agree with this comment mostly. But what it fails to take into account is just basic social disadvantages. Women and men are treated differently and, whilst in some cases it is quite subtle, it does matter. Im not here to say what your saying is wrong. There are many things, like you mentioned, that statistically just differ and it is just fact. But I think it is a good practise of being a good human to also factor in more complex ideas such as culture and systematic disadvantage to really understand a topic. Not to necessarily to come to a definitive conclusion but to have a greater understanding.
@@mrs_moose3546 and a bunch of feminists dressed up as men and hated every second of it. Most victims of internet bullying are female most internet bully’s are female. A feminist made a male tinder account and realized how shitty the women that matched where. The feminists that dress as men were treated as men.
When you grow accustomed to preferential treated equal treatment feels like oppression.
And why is it that male dominated things are always bad while female dominated things are always seen as a success or woman power. That’s where any argument is lost.
Let people do whatever they want to do.
@@jackjon7763 exactly, hatred is always bad.
Polgar was verry strong, I don’t care if it s a woman for me she s one of strongest chess player who ever lived. But sadly just like Boby Fisher she broke down and retired. Chess world is rude, sadly she had never shown her full potential. Her true strength was beyond repair.
She really wasn’t one of the strongest though sadly.
@@carsonhales2449 being in the top 10 in the world IS one of the strongest in my opinion.
How many women world champions was that again ???
@mastersleib c'mon man, do you really believe the top 100 women are less interested in "things" (or the top100 women at any sport)? It can take decades of studying chess and playing to even reach #100 in the women's leaderboard. They certainly care about chess as much as men. They just can't reach the same level and there's nothing wrong about that.
Anyone who doesn't take "things" seriously won't spend a significant part of their lifetime getting better at it
@@CyberPhiliosopher if she was top 10 in the world and Magnus still beat her 11-1-5 then my God was Magnus way overpowered.
wow I finally found the right move when he paused and said figure it out. I'm totally ignorant of chess but I can tell I am learning a bit from these vids.
Free black pawn @6:20. White bishop can take black pawn. If black knight takes bishop, white knight on D5 can fork an attack on the black queen and rook.The attack by black bishop on white queen and king is protected by white knight on D2. I am a 1580 rated player :) so if I am missing something here can someone please comment? Thanks!
That is such a refreshing article to read. No politics, just straight science. It's such a rarity to see distilled facts instead of propaganda.
The dog knows more about the chess than me for 110 % !
I loved that game where Judit Polger sacrificed her rook to crash Vishwanath Anand
At 14:01 magnus wouldnt capture the knight there because it s guarded by the bishop😂😂
I didn't think I could love agadmator even more. Thanks for sharing this absolutely accurate and important article - as a molecular biologist turned scientific sysadmin / developer, I not only despise wrongly interpreted data, but also know first-hand about the struggle of female-presenting individuals in male-dominated areas. I was watching this on my partners laptop, but made a point of logging in on my own account to make this comment. Thank you and keep up the good stuff
I've always had an issue with how they have Women's titles and then regular titles. Im not a woman but I feel its a bit disrespectful to make it easier to get Women's titles as a chess player. Chess doesn't require any actual athleticism so the excess or lack of testosterone doesn't make a difference in a player's ability to play the game. But here you have titles like WFM, WGM, etc and the requirements to get those titles are a lot easier than FM or Master or IM. So to me, it always felt like the chess federation was saying "You're a woman, you're not as good as men but we wanna make you feel included so here are some easier titles to get so you feel validated." If someone could enlighten me, thatd be great cause I really don't see the point in these titles
chess doesn't require more testostorone, but it does require a certain set of mental faculties of which men are better at. If you allowed women into men's tournaments they would struggle to have any relevance at all.... thats the real reason why.
@@anab0lic lol??? Based on what do you say that? So stupid
@@vitorbicudo108 pick up data from literally any mixed tournament
Of course it's discriminatory, that's the reason why Judit Polgar never played those women championships. The same applies to Hou Yi Fan
@@anab0lic Women are allowed to play in Open section.(It's not men's tournament). Judith played candidates once and was rated in Top 10 once.
For the interested reader: Cerdes & Gränsmark (2010) shows that male chess players adopt more aggresive openings when facing female players even though they do not gain in terms of winning.
It makes sense, men are naturally inclined to behave somewhat aggressively towards women. It is to an extent moderated by the rules of the civilized society, but that doesn't erase the aggressive impulses altogether.
This goes back to how we evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. Where the best hunter best athletes were the best mates. So naturally men would try to “strut their stuff” even subconsciously. Same with women.
A study told women they were mapping their walk to improve their data on human physiology. Then asked the same women back and told them they were mapping their walk to show men to choose from. The women’s walk was completely different. The women popped their chest out and pushed their butts back and had a more obvious sway in their hips than the first time. In both situations the researchers stressed the importance of walking naturally.
@@jackjon7763 Haha funny, but true. :-)
That's a great article! I think this argument applies to so many other areas and also so many other groups. I always had the feeling the amount of people in a group has to have an impact on how good the best are, but I'm not a mathematician so it's great to see some reasoning and proof behind it.
Flawed reasoning, no proof. He cherry picked a country that's unlike other countries and ignored other effects like self selection according to achievement.
Agadmator blundered his arrows more than I have blundered my matches in my life
Also, having seen her TED talk (1.) and read the article (2.):
1. kudos for stating "giving checkmate is fun, especially against adults", instead of "against men". It shows me that for her, gender plays no role.
2. so why "should everyone ask how reduce the insane participation gap?"
> Isn't it ok for women to be less interested in chess, in the same way women are less interested in, say, bricklaying and information technology? There's a fine line between inviting women over into a men's field and actively pushing equality. Women and men shouldn't be pushed to be equally interested in everything because we're clearly not. Imagine what would happen if day care centers' employees would have to have 50% male employees, pushed by political and SJW agendas...
I always found it extraordinary, how Judit Polgar was able to reach number four on the overall ranking,
and no other woman player has been able to crack the top hundred.
@Huon Pine All right, so there were some minor factual inaccuracies.
Still an exceptional gap between Polgar and everyone else.
Chess was Judit Polgar's profession. Hou Yifan was once really good as well considering she became a grandmaster at the age of 14 but to her, as she said, chess is just a hobby. Therefore she attended to university and chose to pursue a different carrer field unlike Judit. Maybe Yifan would be even better but she will not due to those reasonable differences
I just love all your videos. Great article too, but it was disappointing to see some of the comments...but hey, it is the internet after all.
None of the comments I saw were disrespectful and ive read through hundreds of them. I have however seen many people express a disapointed sentiment like you have here. Im not sure whats going on maybe youtube is censoring things from certain people. Maybe youtube has hidden from you the dozens of arguments put forward that completely trash this silly article
@@johnj1646 Oh sorry for the confusion, I don't mean comments here on RUclips, but those on the actual article itself
Magnus is the king but judit is queen .
Judit is a trans
@@Bwijaya2301 what
@@pedrohofstatter1322 its only wishfull thinking:D
@@Ruturaj22 nerd
@@Ruturaj22 it’s because there are more chess players that are male, otherwise the stats will be equal
He makes some very valid points. I think he refutes most typical arguments suggesting some level of gender superiority. Very interesting. Just goes to show you how easy it is to be blind to opportunities presented to one group and not the other
An excellent article. We should prefer rigor to anecdote in evaluating such questions. In my professional career as an engineer, I saw many capable women who could match ability with any of my male colleagues, so I see no reason that any well-represented group shouldn’t be part of the top tier of performers in any field. Women excel in many other fields. There is no reason to think that chess is somehow different, that there is some inherent ability that give men an advantage over the board. Such thinking has been disproved time and again throughout my lifetime in other areas, and the error of such thinking will someday be apparent in chess, as well.
Just saying...
I looked at
newratings.fide.com
Used advanced search and excluded inactive players. I used the ratings filter to know the amount of players by gender who had the following ratings or above:
2700: 0/36 (0%)
2650: 1/99 (1,01%)
2600: 1/234 (0,43%)
2550: 4/423 (0,95%)
2500: 12/729 (1,65%)
2450: 27/1216 (2,22%)
2400: 58/1967 (2,95%)
2350: 102/2994 (3,41%)
2300: 170/4334 (3,92%)
2250: 269/6063 (4,44%)
2200: 390/8421 (4,63%)
2150: 525/11433 (4,59%)
2100: 683/15137 (4,51%)
2050: 907/19562 (4,64%)
2000: 1175/24602 (4,78%)
Even if performance is roughly the same top performance does vary significantly. Participation gap can not explain why female participation decreases the higher the rating.
For some strange reason standard deviations of the distributions are not discussed, not to mention the interest gap (The Nordic Gender Equality Paradox anyone?). Further why limit the data set to India only?
I was thinking something similar. You can't come out and say that the smaller population is the CAUSE for the lower average ranking of women in chess in the top 100. Absurd. Millions and millions of women play chess and many more played since the inception of the game. Running a regression or whatever only proves what we already know which is that women rank lower than men on average - at least in the top 100.
Because it was a reply to an article on Indian chess players? (there is a short mention of SD)
@@staypositive4358 You can, actually, when the numbers skew so far in favor of men. However, data on other countries shows that participation alone doesn't explain the gap at the highest level, although it does account for roughly half of it, the other half can likely be put down to the very obvious social factors that place men at an advantage over women in chess, it's possible a very slim margin could come down to "superior male intellect", but it likely wouldn't be enough to be statistically relevant.
that article was awesome, thank you for sharing!. i have been curious for a long time, and have only ever heard anecdotes and opinions on both sides of the argument. i consider this issue completely solved, or at the very least no longer something that weighs on my mind
Give this one a read. Same methodology, different results across other countries. Concludes that "drawing bold conclusions from simple data-driven experiments in a complex social issue" is very suspicious.
josecamachocollados.medium.com/the-gender-gap-in-top-level-chess-15591d8990ba
Just because the ratio is in the same in all the lower rankings, does not mean that correlation would apply linearly at the extreme top.
@@CuntryMatters interesting. im not sure if im convinced by that article, he mentions he " introduced a different “top strength” measure that may be less affected by outliers." and he also has no error bars, unlike ma's original article. without error bars, his p
@@FearTheImpaler He added a different top strength metric on top of existing one (which was also tested in the same article).
In plain English: Wei Ji Ma - 1 metric, 1 country; Collados - 2 metrics, 20 countries.
Thanks for the link Agagmator!! A love a bit of math in the hands of an expert. A bit worried about what the comments section will reveal though...
This "expert" cherrypicked the Indian data. In the chessbase comments someone used all the data and it showed the real story.
@@numcrun Exactly, just a fast search in fide tells a different story:
I looked at
newratings.fide.com
Used advanced search and excluded inactive players. I used the ratings filter to know the amount of players by gender who had the following ratings or above:
2700: 0/36 (0%)
2650: 1/99 (1,01%)
2600: 1/234 (0,43%)
2550: 4/423 (0,95%)
2500: 12/729 (1,65%)
2450: 27/1216 (2,22%)
2400: 58/1967 (2,95%)
2350: 102/2994 (3,41%)
2300: 170/4334 (3,92%)
2250: 269/6063 (4,44%)
2200: 390/8421 (4,63%)
2150: 525/11433 (4,59%)
2100: 683/15137 (4,51%)
2050: 907/19562 (4,64%)
2000: 1175/24602 (4,78%)
Really good to see studies like these. I've seen similar material on women participating and performing in esports, and this seems to come up with very similar results. It's not some magical biological factor, it's simply the way humans work: most people get obsessed with a game within a certain window of age if they later end up seeking it as a profession. If the social and institutional support isn't there, and the incentives for getting good aren't there... well, there are millions of other things to get obsessed with in life. You don't develop the passion to devote your life to a game in a vacuum
Participation gap( not performance gap). It totally makes sense... But I don't understand what he meant when he suggested that top female participants/players might be over performing if you consider the 'injustices and biases' they had to overcome to get to where they are. What 'injustices and biases' is the author referring to?
He is saying that women hear a lot things like: "oh you're a woman, you shouldn't be playing chess, that's not something for women". Don't know if that's really that common or it's just a generalisation tough...
imaginary ones basically like the boogieman/patriarchy