men vs women in chess( its finally settled!)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/mens-chess-superiority-explained-08-12-29/

There will never be a womens world champion.....

Never!!!!!!

[IMG]http://media.giphy.com/media/hEwkspP1OllJK/giphy.gif[/IMG]

in my opinion,it is just a manner of time.women are growing in confidence.they are increasingly getting into professions and activities tradicionally male dominated.all these is happening at a steady pace.one only has to go to universities and colleges to see how strong the presence of women.altbought it is sayd that women think differently than man,being smart has nothing to do with gender.it is a matter of time!!

lol i was just joking but still.....but whatever that article says is diffinately has some truth to it.

the only woman who ever made it to the top of chess was judit polgar. butt you need to look at how she was raised. what if mr polgar had 3 sons? or what if someone like fischer, kasparov or carlsen was raised that way?

The barriers to entry for world champion keep going up. Before someone who learned chess at 18 could be world championship contender level whereas today if you aren't a GM by 14 you could forget about it.  Soon enough the practical (i.e., not offical but due to the nature of competition are nevertheless off the book requirements) requirements of being a world champion would be as follows:

1.At least upper middle class parents to afford coaching from a very young age.

2.Be on the autism spectrum for the drive, obsession, focus, and related "splinter" talent such as photographic memory or whatever Casandra from The Librarians has (she's my favorite TV character ^_^ )

3.Genius (almost didn't include it in the list since it has always been the case)

I won't include male because females (however statistically unlikely) could still meet all the above criteria. 

That's the profile of a future chess champion in a nutshell.  Perhaps gone are the days of socially skilled Casanovas such as Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Karpov, and Kasparov (all of whom weren't just outgoing and the life of the party but women strongly desired them too), but were  as world champion as they'd be diverting enough time to being social and outgoing which would take them away from chess. Carlsen falls under the category as the autism isn't severe enough in his case to count as a "disorder". 

I don't think so, bale, this topic has been battered to death. Don't forget to take your medication, btw.

I was talking about haemorrhoids cream! 

This topic is one that is truly trollish as it's purpose seems to be to bait.

That said, the study cited by SA is an older one... the SA article itself is a bit old.  But it does have statistical validity. Numbers do matter.  Whoever said that J. Polgar's advantage was in her training (what if Lazlo had boys?) ignores the fact that almost all great modern players had intense and focused training from childhood.  Boys are singled out for this training more than girls for whatever reason. L. Polgar's idea wasn't that girls could be trained, but rather that training means more than innate ability.

Actually this topic brings out as many defensive and insecure males who seem to feel that success of some exceedingly gifted, hard-working men somehow reflects on their own potential.  Success in Chess, as in most endeavors, is a matter of individual input and/or talent, not something affected directly by  gender/race/ethnic/socio-economic or whatever delimiter. If enough females take up chess to increase the likelihood of producing a combination of innate talent/intelligence - early recognition of that talent - and proper training, then the chance of a female world champion will increase.  Right now it's probably unlikely. 

Socioeconomics matter because if the kids' parents can't afford a good coach or even good books then the kid won't have a chance even if he (or she) is a genius. 

It is truly talent and genius that separates the masters from the rest.  One needs to have strong innate abilities if they are to be able to quickly see 25 moves (i.e., 50 ply) ahead with great clarity almost as if the end of the variation is on the board in front of them. 

Young girls rather want to sit by themselves and do role playing with the chess pieces, and preferrably nobody should win. Boys, on the other hand, will always strive to crush each other as hard as possible.

It's all a matter of mindset

Was I the only one who actually read the article? It says exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

Quote from the conclusion (verbatim): "So the scientists compared the ratings of the top hundred male and top hundred female players from Germany. And they found that the men indeed outperformed the women. However that difference can be almost entirely explained by statistics. Because the larger the population, the wider the range of measured scores—the bell curve has a longer tail. And because many more men play than women, the best male players are extreme outliers on that bell curve. As more women play, a few should also reach those extremes, right out there with the men. To which one might be tempted to say: Checkmate."

that wont go down well with some dudes

The simple fact that he is spewing here suggests that his inflatable girlfriend has dumped him. Or beaten him at chess. Or both.

Exactly. According to the study, the lack of women in the top spaces (and the bottom spaces) is statistically expected.  It's all about numbers. 

Some of the methodology of this study has been questioned recently, but the statistical expectation seems reasonable.

Awfully convenient assumption. Only women that succeed, try.

"Actually this topic brings out as many defensive and insecure males who seem to feel that success of some exceedingly gifted, hard-working men somehow reflects on their own potential."

Indeed, for men or women to feel this way, is irrational. One need not look at statistics (i.e., people who are not you), but rather themselves, to get an idea of where they are in the chess world.

It seems like it depends on what study you look at. Some people say statistics explains the whole thing, whereas others say there is still some sort of gap not sufficiently explained by that. The other point is that we need to figure out why the statistics are the way they are, what it is about the world that makes it that way. Perhaps it's upbringing; perhaps it's also mindset. It's hard to say.

bitch please!!!!

evolutionists these days!

I agree.  I'm not sure why gender becomes such an issue. Women who are motivated to succeed will succeed. Same with men, of course.  But stats do reveal the odds (and the expectations) between lower represented groups and highly represented group have to produce players in the highest eschelons.