Why are men better than women?

This is something that has puzzled me for years now. Men and women play in seperate tournaments. Women are not at a physical disadvantage like sport, so why, statistically, are men better at chess than women?

Just a question!

This has been argued out to split hairs in several threads here.

Try the search feature or maybe someone will provide a few links.

thanks goldendog. I'm new here and still trying to find my way about

NP, I saw that you were new.

The search feature doesn't work so great here so ask again as needed.

a good question.

I'm curious to know people's theories on this...

I once played a woman at Bremen chess club in Germany. I told her that she was the best female player I'd ever played against. I was subsequently told that she had previously been a man before "the operation" - true story....

Obviously, the separation of men's and women's titles and events in chess is absurd. Just as insulting as "Affirmitive Action" in the U.S. There are some well meaning ideas and people behind this absurdity. But, no doubt, it remains absurd, with no end in sight.

And I have no clue why only Judith Polgar has broken into the top ten.

 I agree that they're not necessary anymore. I don't know why so many women insist on playing in women only tournaments. I think it's stupid. One reason about the Judith thing could be that there are less women playing. I think a lot of men enjoy the feeling that they're in an elite, men only group. "We're in a club that women aren't good enough for." kind of egoism.

I agree about the 'men's club' thing, and everything else you said. And I already know why women continue to play in "Women only" tournaments. Because they are people. People taking advantage of the system. It's definitely, in the end, a  question of ethics.

It's time they did away with this gender crap now.

Could be that some WGMs are just as afraid of ratings drops as GMs are, and, having made it to the top of one pool, do not want to get dirty breaking into another one. But without taking this temporary setback, it is hard to imagine becoming the best when you can't play against the best.

Principles rather than ethics.

I wouldn't be the one vouching for 'objective' morality, but as far as I am concerned deciding to play in one players pool instead of another one has very little to do with the whole 'good' 'bad' question. It is not about moral imperatives.

A principled sportsperson tries to find the best opposition wherever it may be found. If you aren't into playing the very best, that is (in most systems) morally ok, but it isn't the most principled stance for a sportsperson.

I think the whole 'men's club' thing is nonsense. Sure, some of the guys may feel inappropriately content with the situation, or make bad jokes about it - but the question is could it be causing the situation we are in?

I find that hard to imagine. If you are good enough to break 2400 - 2500 such things should provide another motivation to become better. 

I think the answer must be sought in statistics (a smaller group of players hence less extreme deviations from the bell curve) and (if this is insufficient to explain the difference) in the differences between men and women. I'm sure there is some culture / nurture involved, but don't barge in and tell me this isn't true for nature.

I think some relevant character traits are, taking the average, just exhibited less frequently and less strongly in women. I don't have any strong feelings about it, but trying to evade that part of the answer at all cost makes no sense to me. 

I'm not sure I understand your difference between "principals", and "ethics". But I am curious for an explanation of this:

"I think the answer must be sought in statistics and in the differences between men and women. I'm sure there is some culture / nurture involved, but don't barge in and tell me this isn't true for nature."

You lost me here:

"...but don't barge in and tell me this isn't true for nature." ?

One approach would be to assume women are just as capable as men in terms of chess potential then, engineer ways to increase their participation.

That was the original model, which led to todays continued segregation.

Interesting. It would suggest whatever was implemented didn't work. Would ending the segregation help? I guess this all assumes we value the goal of women's equality in terms of chess performance.

I don't think it helps women's pocketbook that much, initially. But it does stop the absurdity.

I agree that the exclusive titles for women are bs, but you made quite a jump from "people taking advantage of the system" (which implies that the error is on the system rather than on the particular choice made by the female players participating on it) to "it's definitely, in the end, a  question of ethics" (which questions individual choices and leads us to judge them).

I tend to agree that "the system" is badly designed and gives players the wrong incentives. If I put myself on the shoes of Alexandra Kosteniuk though, I'd rather be known worldwide as the women WC (or the hispanic WC, for what it's worth), if "the system" allows me to occupy such a position, than to be an obscure 2500 player on FIDE's general list. In general, a chess player's life isn't easy on the bank account and if Kosteniuk doesn't go for the WC, someone else will. I don't judge the ethics of her choice and I think she might still be an honest, hard-working person even though she's taking advantage of a particular loophole that I disagree with.

 Got me. It's really not on my short list of things I give a crap about...so to speak.

The only time I jumped is when I read that I was jumping. People taking advantage of a system, and that choice being an ethical one is consistent. You do not point out anything other than that.

You saying that ethical choices made by an individual leads us to judge them, is an assumption. People's ethical choices do not lead me to judge them at all. I only judge those I am most concerned with. This is not one of those times. It is obviously an ethical matter for those who choose to participate in these events. I find the system absurd and insulting to women. But if they choose to participate, I am not offended. There are much more important things in this world to reflect upon.