Can women be as good at chess as men?

For the record, the chessgames.com database yeilds the following data on J.. Polgar's results vs. leading men players:

Overall record: 
Vladimir Kramnik beat Judit Polgar 20 to 0, with 18 draws
Alexey Shirov beat Judit Polgar 13 to 9, with 14 draws.
Garry Kasparov beat Judit Polgar 12 to 1, with 4 draws.
Viswanathan Anand beat Judit Polgar 25 to 9, with 17 draws.
Alexander Morozevich beat Judit Polgar 8 to 0, with 5 draws.
Veselin Topalov beat Judit Polgar 16 to 12, with 14 draws.
Magnus Carlsen beat Judit Polgar 4 to 0, with 3 draws.
Peter Leko beat Judit Polgar 4 to 1, with 10 draws.
Teimour Radjabov beat Judit Polgar 2 to 1, with 5 draws.
Vassily Ivanchuk beat Judit Polgar 6 to 5, with 15 draws
Boris Gelfand beat Judit Polgar 12 to 3, with 14 draws.
Judit Polgar beat Peter Svidler 4 to 2, with 6 draws.
Judit Polgar beat Levon Aronian 2 to 0, with 2 draws.

Even if Judit Polgar was world champ that's just one female world champ compared to tons of other male ones and again nobody comes close to her. Sure, I think it's possible for a woman to compete at top level, but very very few. 1 person is not very impressive.

I would be repeating myself as to why the fact that more men outnumber women doesn't end the discussion.

If you actually understood this topic you would not have made this post.

Judit Polgar has beaten Garry Kasparov (unless I'm mistaken). this doesn't change the FACT (sorry but it's a fact) that men are generally stronger chess players than women.

That FACT isn't what's up for debate here. What should be discussed is WHY men are better.

For the sake of a civil discussion (because I don't want to get into this sexist crap) we should probably just say the question is "why are women less interested in chess than men" or something lol.

Yes, for the sake of civil discussion and sanity, perhaps a different question altogether ought to be considered.

This seems to be one of those issues that cannot face the facts without irrational, illogical and emotional posts couched in the shrillest terms being rained down upon anyone brave enough to dissent or waiver from the politically correct course. A sensible discussion is nigh on impossible.

Really, I see silly, inane and self-serving arguments coming from all sides and not just against those oh-so-brave-yet-politically-incorrect voices of sanity.
Let the games continue.

 As sharp as ever batgirl.... owww!

Reading over chess_kebabs contributions is making my brain hurt.

Perhaps it has some deep evolutionary basis rooted in a man's desire to fight and struggle.  Plenty of world Champions have commented how whatever else chess maybe, it is a fight.  You don't see alot of women going to the bar to get in fights.  Yet men will; hell, I go to the bar to get into fights.  You don' see many (football) firms made up of women.  Perhaps it is just more in a man's nature to fight.  

Aren't you a bit old for that?

 Only if he's losing too many.

Someone else mentioned that men get more obsessed with things than women, and I agree. At least, when it comes to the non-personal spheres. I think this is a large part of the reason why there are so many more top male players. Not because men are more intelligent. I believe testosterone has something to do with the obsessive focus on things.

Women are well-known for being tenacious and tireless when it comes to family and personal relationships - i.e. maternal and social spheres. Generally-speaking, women are interested in people, men are interested in things/concepts.

A glance through history suggests that women are - generally - much less interested in consuming their energies being concerned with "things". After all, the vast majority of objects, tools, appliances, epic works of art etc. were created by men. Someone once remarked that "men create, women consume". Think about it for a moment, and you might perceive at least some truth in that claim...

Yes, why?

I am hoarse in the throat from talking on this thread. It was good fun, but I seriously need to expend exergy elsewhere. Thanks, to all.

One last thought...I just noticed this in the opening (I think you call this OP)...I got a belly laugh out of it:

"Without picking on the female race..."

It is indeed a generalization, but as a generalization, I doubt many people would disagree with it. There are few stronger things/forces than a mother's love for her family, especially her children. That transcends all boundaries, cultures, times etc.

I really don't think the original question was meant to pick on them. I think it was about titles. Female Titles are a good thing (kind of) as it gives girls a chance (I think we could agree most would not be able to make a living off of the top men) and encourages more women to play. I don't care whether you're a gentlemen or not, that's obviously what would happen. Some people actually want to discuss this and not just say something nice and be done with it. However, it may be a little unfair to the people who are at the top level and can compete with them. That may have been what J Polgar thought but I bet most women are happy to play with other women and have a chance.

And what's with all of these people talking about generalizations being so bad? So I can't say Kasparov is a great player if he played one game that wasn't so great?? It's hard to make a statement without making a generalization! (like that one, one statement might be easy, right?) But seriously, that generalziation is fairly accurate and that's what you can expect out of women, but nobody is saying you can't be suprised either.

Erik...Erik...you seem to be a nice fellow. I thought I was...poofed!

Sheesh! I guess that it is necessary to explain the obvious...

"Without picking on the female race..."

Read it again, if need be. Females are of a different "race" then males?

Now you see it? Funny...yes!!

Also, about "generalizations". I never criticized "generalizations". I have been taken out of context on this. I cautioned against "universal statements"...that is quite different from "generalizations".

I would even agree with some...perhaps even many...generalizations made on this thread. However, I would agree with none of the universal statements made herein. Get it?

Saying Kasparov is a great chess player isn't a generalization. Saying Russians are great chess players is a generalization.  Calling womankind "the female race" is an idiocy.

"Female race." I must share it with my work colleagues.