Chess.com Is TOXIC For Women

This has been on my mind a long time. But it's time I ought to speak up.

I'm a woman. I've loved playing Chess my whole life and it's been a core component in my development and my sense of self-worth. And yet, I feel like I have to constantly prove myself in the chess world because I am a woman.

I'm not the only one. There are many, many female chess players who feel the same way. And it's not just because we're women – it's because Chess.com is toxic towards female players.

This isn't an easy thing to talk about. It's hard to put into words how Chess.com makes us feel. But I'll try.

When I go onto Chess.com, I feel like I'm not good enough. I see all these grandmaster games and I feel so small. I see all these men who are respected and revered and I feel like I can never measure up. I see all these articles and videos and blogs about chess and they're all written by men. I feel like my voice doesn't matter.

And then I see the comments. The comments from the men on Chess.com who think they know better than me, who think they can tell me what I'm doing wrong, who think they can tell me how to improve. The comments from the men who tell me I'm not good enough, who tell me I'm not worthy of their time and attention. The comments from the men who make me feel like I'm nothing.

It's not just the comments, though. It's the way that Chess.com is set up. It's the way that the front page is filled with men's games and men's stories and men's voices. It's the way that the women's section is hidden away and treated like an afterthought. It's the way that we're constantly told that we're not as good as the men.

It's all of it. It's the whole website. And it's toxic.

I'm not saying that Chess.com is deliberately trying to be toxic towards female players. But the effect is the same. We're made to feel like we're not good enough, like we don't belong, like our voices don't matter.

And it's not just Chess.com. The whole chess world is like this. We're constantly fighting for recognition, for respect, for a seat at the table. We're told over and over again that we're not good enough, that we don't belong.

It's exhausting. It's demoralizing. And it's not right.

We deserve better. We deserve to be respected and valued. We deserve to have our voices heard.

It's time for change. It's time for the men's chess world to wake up and realize that we're here, we're good, and we're not going anywhere.

You happen to play a game that is totally dominated by men and you are offended that a man tries to help you play better?  Its a no win situation for men in todays world.  FIDE started giving out special titles to women to help them win money and tournaments that otherwise would almost 100% go to men.  Judit Polgar could easily have been Women's Chess Champion for 25 years but refused to play against women because what was the point?  No woman in the world would have had a chance against her.  We are all victims!

Good theory lmao. I never really thought about it like that before, but it makes a lot of sense. I bet a lot of the guys on here are just really shy and maybe even a little bit intimidated by girls. Maybe that's why they're all so eager to be rude and dismissive online; it's the only language they can express themselves with.

First of all, the notion that women are "totally dominated" by men in the world of chess is patently false. In the most recent list of the top 100 chess players in the world, published by the World Chess Federation (FIDE), there are 13 women listed. This is not a insignificant number, and it certainly does not reflect total domination by men.  It is also worth noting that the top woman on this list, Ju Wenjun of China, is actually ranked higher than any man except for Magnus Carlsen of Norway, the current world chess champion. So it is clear that women are more than capable of competing at the highest levels of chess.  The suggestion that women only do well in chess because of special titles or prize money is also false. In fact, many of the world's top female chess players, including Judit Polgar, have refused to compete in women-only events precisely because they feel that they are capable of competing against the best players in the world, regardless of gender.  So it is clear that the claims made in the original article are false and misleading. Women are not "totally dominated" by men in chess, and many of the world's top female players have proven that they are more than capable of competing against the best players in the world.

I think it's probably more the chess world in general that can be toxic towards women. At any rate, it would be nice to cover more women's events...

I doubt, however, that male GMs are admired because of the sex. It's more the hierarchy of rating that seems to dominate the chess world.

Chess is just generally toxic. A big part of the game is psyching out one's opponent. Many people have no shame and will use any advantage the can.

#6: I don't support misogyny but there seems to be a factual inaccuracy. Hou Yifan is the top female Chess player and she's ranked at 98. Ju Wenjun is rated 4th in the female rankings.

Top 100 FIDE

Top 100 FIDE Female

Judit, certainly, proved that women can compete at the highest level. Right now, however, only
Hou Yifan is in the Top 100. Which list are you refering to?
 

Isn’t issuing blanket categorization of genders just another chapter in “toxic” behavior? I do understand some of your comments though. So, what will help? Perhaps simply remove all gender identifying avatars, use of specific pronouns, and what else?

@6
"In the most recent list of the top 100 chess players in the world, published by the World Chess Federation (FIDE), there are 13 women listed."
No, there is only 1 woman in the top 100: Hou Yifan.
https://ratings.fide.com/ 

Inductive reasoning or bottom-up reasoning is being taught today.  Some examples are:
Some women lift weights and are stronger than the average man.  Therefore, there is no difference between men and women.

Judit Polgar played at the top levels of chess.  Therefore, women in general are just as good as men.

Some men make unflattering comments about women.  Therefore, all men are sexist.

7 WNBA players have thrown down dunks.  Therefore, women can dunk basketballs just as well as men can.

The list can go on and on.  Some people don't live in reality because of political correctness.

I love your last part "Some people don't live in reality because of political correctness," no, some people live in reality, you just call it 'political correctness' to justify your outdated bias. Women can do things equal, and even better than men. History has exonerated this obvious fact.

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, though not full assurance, for the truth of the conclusion. It is also known as "bottom-up" reasoning.

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is a method of reasoning in which the conclusion is drawn from one or more premises that are asserted or assumed to be true. Deductive reasoning is also known as "top-down" reasoning.

So, when you say "Inductive reasoning or bottom-up reasoning is being taught today," you are wrong. Deductive reasoning is being taught today. Some examples of deductive reasoning are:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is a valid deductive argument because the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) follows logically from the premises (all men are mortal and Socrates is a man).

Another example of deductive reasoning is:

The moon orbits around the earth.
The earth orbits around the sun.
Therefore, the moon orbits around the sun.

This is not a valid deductive argument because the conclusion (the moon orbits around the sun) does not follow logically from the premises (the moon orbits around the earth and the earth orbits around the sun). In order for the conclusion to be logically valid, it would have to be the case that all objects that orbit around the earth also orbit around the sun. But we know that this is not the case, because there are many objects (e.g., asteroids, comets, and meteoroids) that orbit around the sun but do not orbit around the earth.

So, when you say "The list can go on and on," you are right, but the list of invalid deductions can go on and on, too.

I think the irony of your whole post is that it's sexist against men.

You know something?  I see a lot in modern days about how much grief and trouble and hardships that women have to put up with in society.

But you know what?... 

The world has always been harder for men.

It has always been harder to be a man than a woman.

And in modern society, it's STILL harder to be a man than a woman.

And although I think a lot of us MEN actually *DO* try to understand what women are going through in society... I actually think very few women care what MEN have to go through in society.  Men are treated in a harsher way, and a big part of that, friend, is the way women treat men in general.

That's the truth.  If you want to complain, fine... But no, you won't find sympathy from me, because I think your points are silly to begin with.

Like your point about how men try to tell women what to do, or how to play, or what strategies to use.

HEY... *MEN TALK THIS WAY TO EACH OTHER, NOT JUST TO WOMEN*  This is called COMMUNICATION AND SHARING IDEAS, but of course, nowadays, it's just passed off as "Mansplaining"

Give me a break, it's so stupid.  Give men a break already.

Wasn't it u that trolled in the whatsapp thing ? "Can we have it in hindi ?"

If you are refering to me, please let me quote myself: "Judit, certainly, proved that women can compete at the highest level." So the argument is that the existence of one black swan is enough to prove the existence of black swans.

Apart from that, the fact that there are more men in the top 100, doesn't necessarily prove that men in general are better chess players, as there are also more men at the very bottom of the rating scale...

Is this satire? It feels like satire.

This is not how it works. If you have seen thousands of white swans, but no black swan, you can assume that there are no black swans through inductive reasoning. However, the moment one single black swan shows up, it refutes the whole theory. You cannot say, black swans still don't exist, because this black swan didn't show up earlier...

That's why science tries to falsify their theories, and not to verify them.

I'm not talking about black swans.  I'm talking about women complaining about something men excel in and it upsets you.  Women are better multi-taskers.  Should I start a rant on it isn't fair?  Why can't men and women appreciate their differences without getting defensive?