Chess excellence requires a great deal of dedication and time investment. For many reasons, I believe some social and some more innate, far fewer women are interested in pursuing the game of chess intensively. Therefore, you have smaller numbers of female players and, as a logical consequence, far fewer will achieve GM status. I think these are the main causes of the discrepancy. Is it also possible that women's brains, ON AVERAGE, are wired for different skills than men's are? You can find info on how men ON AVERAGE are stronger at visualizing "spacial relationships," while women ON AVERAGE are stronger at certain other skills. (The issue has also come up in talking about the STEM fields of education.) This could be a factor, perhaps, but it certainly does not mean women are "less intelligent." There are many different types of intelligence and mental abilities....Thanks for doing this video. I'm active in chess, but had not heard this news from my regular chess channels. I had to hear it from my classical languages guy!
Very interesting and nuanced presentation of the controversy. I would certainly like to see a video about the history of misogyny in chess, particularly if you bring people in to discuss the issue, as you have done in the past.
I would like a video on the history of misogyny in chess! I suspect that there is large social component in accounting for discrepancies in performance.
I am a coder. And there are so many trans women in hardcore coding but very few actual women. The thing is to be a like a real hardcore coder you need to be very focused. Almost obsessed. Men get like this but women do not. I think chess has this overlap.I think this is the real reason males play chess better than females. It's behavioral.
Para mí es bastante claro. ¿Por qué hay más GMs en ciertos países que en otros? Claramente el lugar donde naces no determina directamente tu capacidad para jugar ajedrez y mucho menos tu inteligencia. Es un tema de formación, inversión financiera, y apoyo en muchos otros aspectos. Los mejores jugadores del mundo de hecho no están solos, tienen todo un equipo que trabaja para ellos que les permite mantenerse en ese nivel.
Este es un temazo. Muchas veces se dice que este debate, como dije en el video, es "el gran misterio" o "el Santo Grial" del ajedrez. Sin duda que el factor apoyo es determinante en muchos aspectos. Es cosa de ver cómo India ha crecido en ajedrez desde que Anand llegó a lo más alto, pero también casos como el de Irán ilustran el efecto positivo que tienen las redes de apoyo externas y las políticas públicas orientadas a mejorar el nivel ajedrecístico nacional. Un caso interesante de reflexión para tu postura es Magnus Carlsen. Noruega históricamente no existía en ajedrez. No era un país de tradición ajedrecística hasta que apareció Magnus. Una vez escuché que Magnus era el primer noruego en ser súper exitoso en un deporte que no tiene nieve, jajajaja. ¿Cómo explicarías ese caso a la luz de lo que me comentas?
@@ChihonTeaches el caso de Magnus es excepcional en muchos aspectos. Se podría decir que es muy díficil que vuelva a aparecer alguien tan dominante como él y por tanto tiempo. Aún así, su padre lo motivó a jugar desde muy temprana edad, y fue entrenado por GMs noruegos. El caso de Judith Polgar es otro caso excepcional, y en ambos casos uno podría decir: "¿por qué ellos sí y el resto no?", y para mí la respuesta es que siempre van a haber casos que necesiten un poco menos de apoyo que el resto, pero eso no quita que emparejando las condiciones (para el grupo que sea, por ejemplo nación o sexo), haría que los resultados en general se emparejen también (después de un tiempo considerable obviamente, porque este tipo de cosas no cambian de un día para otro), y que si no lo hacemos, vamos a seguir observando esas grandes diferencias.
@@johan2 Es súper interesante tu punto. Me recuerda a la estrategia china para financiar el ajedrez competitivo. Después de estar prohibido en tiempos de Mao, los chinos decidieron invertir fuertemente en la formación de nuevos ajedrecistas, pero en un comienzo concentraron los recursos en el ajedrez femenino exclusivamente. Como resultado, ya hacia 1990 tenían su primera campeona del mundo, y han tenido otras cuantas, más numerosas jugadoras de primer nivel. La inversión en ajedrez abierto (más concentrado hacia el masculino) fue posterior. La tesis estadística dice que si aumentan los números, como dices, se achicarían las diferencias. Por tanto, el problema ahora a nivel global es (si es que nos interesa resolverlo, claro) cómo atraer a más niñas y mujeres a jugar ajedrez. Por eso todavía existe la diferencia entre títulos para mujers y títulos absolutos. The Queen's Gambit fue un paso interesante, pero por ahora culturalmente en muchas partes del mundo el ajedrez tiene una impronta masculina.
I guess by probability, it makes sense. Assume 1 in every 1000 humans are chess geniuses. While there are millions of men playing Chess, there are considerably less women playing actively. thus, the chances of men (who dominated the sport and was its main participants for decades) becoming GMs or even champions, is much higher than women by rule of simple probability. To bridge this gap, female participation is boosted through means such as WGM titles, female only events, so on so forth. But with the new trans woke regime, a person can identify with any gender that aligns their self-perception. This opens the door of women only tournaments to those who aren't actually women. Imagine if Magnus Carlsen wakes up today and decides he is in fact, a woman. He will participate in and decimate the female category (to be noted, he obliterates men on equal ease anyway). Makes the establishment of a female only play system redundant.
Very interesting video on a very important issue! I like the fact that you present both sides of the discussion with imparciality, so the viewer can make their own mind about the subject!
For the average chess player, I agree that the relevance of FIDE is not great since most people play online. However, top chess is played under FIDE's rules everywhere in the world, so what they say is what we all follow as chess players. For example, they have been implementing various changes for blitz tournaments in recent years, and whenever I play a blitz tournament over the board I need to follow those rules.
@@ChihonTeaches Classical is drawish and boring with the strength of computer prep. Rapid events like The Champions Chess tour, Speed Chess Championship which is on now, is where the excitement is at. And Danny Rensch's site has the better commentary even when they cover FIDE events, Theyre the only one who make it interesting to watch. I see FiDE losing alot of influence over the years.
@@Ayatron34 That is indeed the challenge for the future of chess: how to make it more alluring for an audience (and sponsors) whilst preserving the highest quality of play. One solution I like for the classical portion is what they do at the Norway Chess. You play your classical game and the winner gets 3 points. But if it is a draw, you immediately play an Armageddon to split the points. The winner gets 1.5 and the loser 1. I find it exciting because players have a strong incentive to get a decisive game out of the classical bit.
In theoretical physics men are almost completely dominant. It seems to be that the intellectual spectrum is different. There are more supremely intelligent men in the areas of mathematics and logical processing of information than women it would seem. Although average IQ for large populations is the same. Ability to conceptualise seems to be different also.
If we can recognize the significant physical differences between the sexes, it makes sense nature would also give significant mental differences to match those physical requirements for survival.
Thats the argument that was thrown around when women started taking on non domestic roles in society. But fast forward to the present, women are graduating at a higher rate than men. This was made possible by pushing culture in the right direction. The reason why women perform worse than men in chess can be addressed culturally. There's no research that can prove that women are any less intelligent.
It's simple, over 99,9 percent of people are born with either male or female reproductive organs. This is your biological sex, men and women have similarities and differences which makes it fair to have seperate women and men divisions. A born man can not compete in a sport for born women, it's not fair to biological women. What a person wants to identify as doesn't change their biological sex, no hormones or body altering treatments can make a man participating in women's sports fair.
![GM Jorden van Foreest on Chess and Philosophy PART 1/2 [SUB ESP] #chess](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7Inz2pGHIeQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![GM Jorden van Foreest on Chess and Philosophy PART 1/2 [SUB ESP] #chess](/img/tr.png)
Chess excellence requires a great deal of dedication and time investment. For many reasons, I believe some social and some more innate, far fewer women are interested in pursuing the game of chess intensively. Therefore, you have smaller numbers of female players and, as a logical consequence, far fewer will achieve GM status. I think these are the main causes of the discrepancy. Is it also possible that women's brains, ON AVERAGE, are wired for different skills than men's are? You can find info on how men ON AVERAGE are stronger at visualizing "spacial relationships," while women ON AVERAGE are stronger at certain other skills. (The issue has also come up in talking about the STEM fields of education.) This could be a factor, perhaps, but it certainly does not mean women are "less intelligent." There are many different types of intelligence and mental abilities....Thanks for doing this video. I'm active in chess, but had not heard this news from my regular chess channels. I had to hear it from my classical languages guy!
This was definetly the best and most serious video on the topic, thank you!
Thank you very much!!! Your support means a lot to me. Feel free to leave suggestions for future videos!
Very interesting and nuanced presentation of the controversy. I would certainly like to see a video about the history of misogyny in chess, particularly if you bring people in to discuss the issue, as you have done in the past.
I'm working on it right now. I hope to have good representatives of the different positions in the debate.
I would like a video on the history of misogyny in chess! I suspect that there is large social component in accounting for discrepancies in performance.
Indeed there is! OK, I'll try to have that video ready ASAP!!!
I am a coder. And there are so many trans women in hardcore coding but very few actual women. The thing is to be a like a real hardcore coder you need to be very focused. Almost obsessed. Men get like this but women do not. I think chess has this overlap.I think this is the real reason males play chess better than females. It's behavioral.
men are superior to women.
Para mí es bastante claro. ¿Por qué hay más GMs en ciertos países que en otros? Claramente el lugar donde naces no determina directamente tu capacidad para jugar ajedrez y mucho menos tu inteligencia. Es un tema de formación, inversión financiera, y apoyo en muchos otros aspectos. Los mejores jugadores del mundo de hecho no están solos, tienen todo un equipo que trabaja para ellos que les permite mantenerse en ese nivel.
Este es un temazo. Muchas veces se dice que este debate, como dije en el video, es "el gran misterio" o "el Santo Grial" del ajedrez. Sin duda que el factor apoyo es determinante en muchos aspectos. Es cosa de ver cómo India ha crecido en ajedrez desde que Anand llegó a lo más alto, pero también casos como el de Irán ilustran el efecto positivo que tienen las redes de apoyo externas y las políticas públicas orientadas a mejorar el nivel ajedrecístico nacional.
Un caso interesante de reflexión para tu postura es Magnus Carlsen. Noruega históricamente no existía en ajedrez. No era un país de tradición ajedrecística hasta que apareció Magnus. Una vez escuché que Magnus era el primer noruego en ser súper exitoso en un deporte que no tiene nieve, jajajaja. ¿Cómo explicarías ese caso a la luz de lo que me comentas?
@@ChihonTeaches el caso de Magnus es excepcional en muchos aspectos. Se podría decir que es muy díficil que vuelva a aparecer alguien tan dominante como él y por tanto tiempo. Aún así, su padre lo motivó a jugar desde muy temprana edad, y fue entrenado por GMs noruegos. El caso de Judith Polgar es otro caso excepcional, y en ambos casos uno podría decir: "¿por qué ellos sí y el resto no?", y para mí la respuesta es que siempre van a haber casos que necesiten un poco menos de apoyo que el resto, pero eso no quita que emparejando las condiciones (para el grupo que sea, por ejemplo nación o sexo), haría que los resultados en general se emparejen también (después de un tiempo considerable obviamente, porque este tipo de cosas no cambian de un día para otro), y que si no lo hacemos, vamos a seguir observando esas grandes diferencias.
@@johan2 Es súper interesante tu punto. Me recuerda a la estrategia china para financiar el ajedrez competitivo. Después de estar prohibido en tiempos de Mao, los chinos decidieron invertir fuertemente en la formación de nuevos ajedrecistas, pero en un comienzo concentraron los recursos en el ajedrez femenino exclusivamente. Como resultado, ya hacia 1990 tenían su primera campeona del mundo, y han tenido otras cuantas, más numerosas jugadoras de primer nivel. La inversión en ajedrez abierto (más concentrado hacia el masculino) fue posterior. La tesis estadística dice que si aumentan los números, como dices, se achicarían las diferencias. Por tanto, el problema ahora a nivel global es (si es que nos interesa resolverlo, claro) cómo atraer a más niñas y mujeres a jugar ajedrez. Por eso todavía existe la diferencia entre títulos para mujers y títulos absolutos. The Queen's Gambit fue un paso interesante, pero por ahora culturalmente en muchas partes del mundo el ajedrez tiene una impronta masculina.
Jennifer play in only events, they to say there is no reason is telling.
I guess by probability, it makes sense. Assume 1 in every 1000 humans are chess geniuses. While there are millions of men playing Chess, there are considerably less women playing actively. thus, the chances of men (who dominated the sport and was its main participants for decades) becoming GMs or even champions, is much higher than women by rule of simple probability. To bridge this gap, female participation is boosted through means such as WGM titles, female only events, so on so forth. But with the new trans woke regime, a person can identify with any gender that aligns their self-perception. This opens the door of women only tournaments to those who aren't actually women. Imagine if Magnus Carlsen wakes up today and decides he is in fact, a woman. He will participate in and decimate the female category (to be noted, he obliterates men on equal ease anyway). Makes the establishment of a female only play system redundant.
Very interesting video on a very important issue! I like the fact that you present both sides of the discussion with imparciality, so the viewer can make their own mind about the subject!
That's the Chihon Teaches method! Always having Socrates as an inspiration for learning.
FIDE is increasingly irrelevant with the rise of the major Chess websites. Especially Danny Rensch's. As well as a paper world champion.
For the average chess player, I agree that the relevance of FIDE is not great since most people play online. However, top chess is played under FIDE's rules everywhere in the world, so what they say is what we all follow as chess players. For example, they have been implementing various changes for blitz tournaments in recent years, and whenever I play a blitz tournament over the board I need to follow those rules.
@@ChihonTeaches Classical is drawish and boring with the strength of computer prep. Rapid events like The Champions Chess tour, Speed Chess Championship which is on now, is where the excitement is at. And Danny Rensch's site has the better commentary even when they cover FIDE events, Theyre the only one who make it interesting to watch. I see FiDE losing alot of influence over the years.
@@Ayatron34 That is indeed the challenge for the future of chess: how to make it more alluring for an audience (and sponsors) whilst preserving the highest quality of play. One solution I like for the classical portion is what they do at the Norway Chess. You play your classical game and the winner gets 3 points. But if it is a draw, you immediately play an Armageddon to split the points. The winner gets 1.5 and the loser 1. I find it exciting because players have a strong incentive to get a decisive game out of the classical bit.
In theoretical physics men are almost completely dominant. It seems to be that the intellectual spectrum is different. There are more supremely intelligent men in the areas of mathematics and logical processing of information than women it would seem. Although average IQ for large populations is the same. Ability to conceptualise seems to be different also.
I URGE you to look up highest IQ living human beings. 😉.
If we can recognize the significant physical differences between the sexes, it makes sense nature would also give significant mental differences to match those physical requirements for survival.
Thats the argument that was thrown around when women started taking on non domestic roles in society. But fast forward to the present, women are graduating at a higher rate than men. This was made possible by pushing culture in the right direction. The reason why women perform worse than men in chess can be addressed culturally. There's no research that can prove that women are any less intelligent.
It's simple, over 99,9 percent of people are born with either male or female reproductive organs. This is your biological sex, men and women have similarities and differences which makes it fair to have seperate women and men divisions. A born man can not compete in a sport for born women, it's not fair to biological women. What a person wants to identify as doesn't change their biological sex, no hormones or body altering treatments can make a man participating in women's sports fair.
They’re not women - period!
So then the trans men in chess should be able to keep their woman’s titles. Right?
This Has Absolutely Nothing to Do With Misogyny Yes Some Malw Chess players are Misogynists but its Nor the the point
Dejé un like.
Yo te dejé uno también.
Why there is no transman(biological female) joining Men sports event?
Men in dresses are not women
Trans whamen
LGB Tyranny