Bobby Fischer on Women in Chess

go 'round one more time, just for me?

I think you read my mind.  

That the very top levels of chess are dominated by males does involve nature. However, to emphasize the gender of these players is foolish.

It's correct to say that there are more great chess players that are male, but it is incorrect to say that males are better chess players. As nature has it, males are more easily expendable and so have larger variation in intelligence and other genetic traits. This means that you will see more male geniuses - but at the same time you'll also see more male idiots.

Those who emphasize gender don't realize that ultimately it isn't gender that determines the potential, but the genetics of the individual.

I posted a link to this study earlier, but it's gone now... don't know why. Here it is again:

Women are just as good at chess as men - but they just don't like game, says Oxford study: Men do not dominate chess competitions because they are better at the game but simply because women do not like it, according to an Oxford University study -- The Telegraph, 27 Jan 2009: "The lack of women who have broken into the top ranks of chess players is almost purely because so few of them play, academics found..."

Breakfight:  The question of nature versus nurture is still hotly debated, so positions on the topic that are presented as fact are highly suspect.

I think Fischer should be given a break. His views on that Youtube video are from forty-six years ago. I don't know if he changed his view about women playing chess but he should have the benefit of the doubt.  BTW, my aunt taught me how the pieces move after Fischer won in 1972,

Bobby Fischer and Lisa Lane. 
They were, contrary to popular belief, on good terms. Fischer's opinion of women chess players around 1960 was blunt but probably fairly accurate. Could he give a knight to any women, even Bykova? Why not? Morphy gave a knight to Thompson who was probably stronger than any 1960 woman player. Was Fischer misogynistic? I think that's doubtful. His views were certainly old-fashioned and unenlightened, but also somewhat typical of that time.

Still, Fischer doesn't appear to dislike women. In the 1961 Sports Illustrated article on Lisa Lane it says:
"What chance will Lisa have against such opponents? [i.e. Women World Championship candidates] 'I think Lisa can go to Yugoslavia and win the candidates' tournament,' said Bobby Fischer, after analyzing Lisa's games, 'and then go on to Moscow and win the women's championship of the world.'"

By the same token in  1961 Newsweek article on Lisa Lane tell us: 
"Even in winning, however, Lisa Lane, vivacious and outspoken, has failed to sell herself to America's chess purists. 'She'll never beat any top men regularly - no woman can,' said Bobby Fischer, the U.S. men's champion and an international grandmaster. 'They can't concentrate, they don't have stamina and they aren't creative. They're all fish [an ineffective chess player]. Lisa, you might say, is the best of the American fish.'"

Again in 1961, The New York Times printed:
"A practitioner of one-epigramsmanship, she delights in telling of the time Bobby Fischer refused to play in a tournament with her. 'Men and women shouldn't play together,' snapped teen-aged Mr. Fischer, the national champion and an International Grand Master. 'Adults and children shouldn't play together,' Lisa snapped back. She does not regard male players as men, but rather as opponents or associates. 'I get a lot of love letters from other chess players,' she says with a soft girlishness that is in sharp contrast to her usual intense volubility. 'I read them, I laugh, and then I file them. Letters from Grand Masters go on top.' She says that the only thing that angers her is that men refuse to take her seriously. Her husband [i.e. Walter Rich] (she was married two weeks after winning the women's title in December, 1959) used to say: 'Don't take it all so hard, Lisa. It's only a game.'  She is at present waiting for the divorce papers to come through.

"She is at present waiting for the divorce papers to come through."  Wow.

Lisa Lane divorced Walter Rich and later married Neil Hickey (who would subsequently help Fischer write his famous "Top Ten"  article).

''Chess is a dangerous art''.... This quote alone is way more interesting than what Fisher thought of females.

It is!  lol.  You can totally lose yourself in chess... Have you read King's Gambit by Paul Hoffman?  Good book!

“As with Steinitz, Fischer's genius has often been concealed by controversies away from the board. Like Lasker, Fischer has raised chess to new financial heights despite frequent retreats from serious play. And, like Capablanca, Fischer is recognized by millions of non-players and has won the game many new enthusiasts.” -- Andy Soltis

“Fischer was a master of clarity and a king of artful positioning. His opponents would see where he was going but were powerless to stop him. I like to say that Bobby Fischer was the greatest Russian player ever. All of his great opening moves came from the Russians. He studied all of their methods. But what made Fischer a genius was his ability to blend an American freshness and pragmatism with Russian ideas about strategy.” -- Bruce Pandolfini

“He turned the methods of the Soviet school of chess against it: Botvinnik-style scientific study of all areas of the game, in-depth openings preparation that has probably only been equaled or bettered by Kasparov, and a passionate will to win that only Alekhine and Larsen could match.” -- John Nunn (on Fischer)

“Suddenly it was obvious to me in my analysis I had missed what Fischer had found with the greatest of ease at the board.” -- Mikhail Botvinnik

“Fischer is the greatest genius to descend from the chess heavens.” -- Mikhail Tal

“Bobby Fischer is the greatest chess genius of all time!” -- Alexander Kotov

“In complicated positions, Bobby hardly had to be afraid of anybody.” -- Paul Keres

“My God, he plays so simply!” -- Alexei Suetin (speaking of Bobby Fischer)

“When I played Bobby Fischer, my opponent fought against organizations - the television producers and the match organizers. But he never fought against me personally. I lost to Bobby before the match because he was already stronger than I. He won normally.” -- Boris Spassky

“The chess heroes nowadays should not forget that it was owing to Fischer that they are living today in four- and five- star hotels, getting appearance fees, etc.” -- Lev Khariton

 Some people are just born optimists; when I see a girl fight, I fully expect it to end with them kissing.

The facile "they don't like it" language is the stuff of pop jounalism. The study itself speaks to the issue of performance, population numbers and observed difference:

A member of the research team summarised it less glibly, "...96 percent of the observed difference is down to the fact a greater number of men play chess. There is little left for biological or cultural explanations to account for."

I suppose women dont like anything as much as men do ?   Is there any sport or game in which men and women participate that women dominate? Curious minds wanna know.....

thats a bit sexist aint it Reb?? 

 I knew some would think so Donna but it isnt intended that way, no. I adore women myself and still treat all women "special" as I was raised to do as a Southern Gentleman. I firmly believe the reason men do better in chess ( and some other games/sports ) is that men are more fanatical and less practical than women and it has nothing to do with intelligence. To condemn Fischer for his views in 1963 would mean to condemn almost all males of his generation and the ones before since that was the prevailing attitude of the times. Even many women of those times firmly believed they should stay home and care for the home and children and husband while the husband went out into the mean nasty world and brought home the "bacon". When I was growing up there was no negative stigma attached to being a "housewife" when someone asked a woman what she did for a living. Today there does seem to be such a stigma, which I dont think is good. My mother was a "housewife" as were both my grandmothers and noone ever thought less of them for it and my brother and I are   certainly grateful that at least one of our parents raised us instead of various daycare strangers and being trucked off to school years earlier than we were anyway..... we understood that we didnt see our father much because he was "working" and it was necessary for the family to survive.

that said Reb my mum was the same although i had older brothers and sisters that looked after me while my mum went out to work part time ...

I DO actually do the same only i dont have a man to bring home "the bacon" as u say ... but saying that i am an outdoor person who hates being stuck at home!!!

Now in a way i agree that men become more easily obsessed with certain things such as sport coz in my opinion (and im not saying its fact!) men feel they have more to prove hence why men ARE much better at competitive sports (chess included).

 I have a number of problems with this article, I will begin by addressing the most obvious one.

How can it be argued that the lack of women in the top levels of chess is due to the lack of women who play? The argument ultimately amounts to a statement similar to "If women did play as much as men, it is certain there would  be an equal number of women would be at the very top levels" yet there is nothing to be certain of, as there is no evidence to back that statement. A similar case would be if I were to say "If I started chess at an earlier age, there would be no doubt that I would be a FIDE master". It could be so, but it is impossible to verify such a statement.

As for my earlier statement that males are more likely to have outliers, this can be backed by observing that the number of Nobel Laureates, savants, and - on the other side of the spectrum - Darwin Awards winners significantly favor males. I concede that the number of Nobel Laureates has a definite gender bias, but this is not the case for savants and Darwin Awards winners.

This brings up another problem I have with the article posted, as it ignores the entire point I made in my first post: to try to determine which gender is better at chess is useless and shallow. My argument was that males are more likely to have genetic outliers that dominate the board, not that males are better chess players. All males aren't Bobby Fischers, and if a man and a woman of equal intellect and experience were to be compared, they would likewise be equal in their chess playing abilities.

I guess the most concise way to put it is this:

Chess is a game that involves two players. It isn't a battle between two groups, but rather two individuals.

Hey, breakfight, hope you aren't assuming I'm picking an argument with you. I'm reading a bit of combative tone in your posts -- I just thought the article was interesting and worth posting, seeing as how "why do men/boys do xyz better than women/girls" has to be the #2 most annoyingly prevalent question in internet discussion forums dominated by males (right after "does size matter")... it is an interesting bit of research to toss into the mix.

Regarding your qeustion about How can it be argued that the lack of women in the top levels of chess is due to the lack of women who play? etc -- the way I read it, they are saying the more people in a population that participate in an activity, the greater likelihood that excellent or superior-performing members of that population will be found to participate and will rise to the top (and vice versa). So long as far fewer women overall play than men there will be that much less of a chance that the individual girls/women who could be superior players will find their way into the ranks in the first place, then go on to play, persist and achieve at the highest levels. You gotta be in it to win it. The chances that out of a million men you will find the next Bobby Fischer is greater than the chances that out of a thousand women you will find the first Barbie Fischer.

But your point about Chess is a game that involves two players. It isn't a battle between two groups, but rather two individuals.... is very well taken. Great point.