Battle of sexes

This is a part of an interview made recently in cuba to Karpov, who has visited the country. I will translate it.

—¿Considera usted que debe haber diferencias de sexos en los torneos de ajedrez?

—Entonces, ¿no cree que las féminas puedan estar al mismo nivel que los hombres?

—Esto solo sucederá cuando ellas logren correr a la misma velocidad que los hombres. Algunas mujeres juegan muy bien, de forma excelente, como Judit Polgar. Pero ya le digo, el ajedrez exige una gran concentración.

 19 de abril de 2008 00:40:00 GMT

To english:

Q -Do you think that there should be sex diferences in tournaments?

Karpov - Yes, because man play better than woman. Besides, chess requiers a lot of concentration, and males have more resistence.

Q- So, you don't belive women can play in the same level as man?

Karpov - This will only hapen when they can run as fast as man. Some of them can play realy well, but I tell you, chess needs a lot of concentration.

                                                                     19th of april, etc...

(I don't have time to translate the entire enterview now, but if any one wants it, just ask and I'll see what I can do. It's in my mail, so I can forward it to any one in spanish also)

Well.... I just wanted to add this comment by such a renomated player to a discution that probably is going on since this forum was created.

I tend to dissagree, but then again, who am I to disagree with Karpov. I want some other of you to comment to.

Errata: ... Some of them play realy well, LIKE JUDIT POLGAR, but I tell you...

sorry... forgot that in the translation.

Si' mano's playo bettero thano womeno in generalo

Translation - Yeah, men play better than women in general.

:P 

a pitty you can't sort by sex here in chess.com it would be amusing to look how many high ranked womans (1900+) we have here.

An about the article i saw a similar one a few months ago on the ChessBase Magazine

 This is a mediocre translation. The most important oversight in this translation is the fact that you have quoted Karpov as saying explicitly that men play better than women. What he said was that men play more than women, and that this is the main reason for their dominance of the sport.

 Hear, Hear!

An improved translation:

Q - Do you think that there should be sex differences in chess tournaments?

Karpov - Yes. Firstly, because men play more than women. Also, chess requires strong concentration, and males have better mental endurance.

Q - So, you don't believe that women can be at the same level as men?

Karpov - This will only happen when they manage to run as fast as men. Some women play very well, like Judit Polgar. But as I told you, chess demands a great deal of concentration.

"This will only happen when they manage to run as fast as men."

What I think Karpov was getting at is that there are some things that, for whatever reasons, women will never do as well as men. There are some things that women will always be able to do better than men, but chess is just one of those things that will probably always be male dominated. 

I personally think that this is much more because of the popularity amongst men and much less about the mental differences.

But that's just my opinion... 

It shouldn't matter.

Chess is universal in many capacities, and gender should not make any sort of difference. Pardon my saying, but screw the statistics; chess strength and skill is based upon individual character - not stereotypical analysis of various groups, races, and gender.

It is foolish for anyone to establish a sense of superiority over any such instance involving human differences.

 Bring it on!

Tijaro, everything you said is refuted by evidence.

My personal take is that men invented chess for men to play, and they fashioned a game that stresses mens' brains - how else to separate the men from the boys!  So it isn't that men are smarter somehow, it's that men are better at playing a specific game that has been continuously honed for 500 years to be challenging for men.

 "It is foolish for anyone to establish a sense of superiority over any such instance involving human differences."

That's what Monday night football, boxing, ice skating, and synchronized swimming are all about.  Competition.  We honor the winners with our devotion, money, trophies, and so forth.

I was talking about sexism, "Storm", not your interpretation of what you like to watch on Monday night TV.

Think before you write; it is wrong to think in terms of generalization of men being superior to women or vis versa in any capacity (it is wrong to view any human being superior to another, really). We are all human beings separated only by individual qualities and it those individual qualities that differentiate chess players - not gender.

stormcrown, Please show me that evidence. Tijaro said exactly what I think about this, the whole thing is pointless. You can show with statistics that men are generally better than women at chess. What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that if I spend as much time playing chess as a guy he's going to be better than me? or does it mean that I have some sort of upper limit on my rating that I can't cross as female? No it doesn't prove either of those.

The statistics doesn't prove anything except that there are more men that's good at chess than women. That's why this is just as useful as making statistics over hair and eye colour compared to chess rating.

I could have sworn that the last person I won against was a guy.

Also as I mentioned before there are more dark haired GMs than blonde ones. Is this a solid proof that blonde people are worse at chess?