What's the scientific explanation for top female chess players being weaker than top males?

What's the scientific explanation for top female chess players being weaker than top males?

White/gray matter ratio

we are not equal. check out different belll curve distributions.

emotions get too much in the way the further you plan ahead.

Your mum was checking my bell curve least night

Chess requires a lot of upper body strength.

But really.. maybe women just aren't as interested in chess overall, so the top potential players never play.

An old lecturer of mine told us about this, he said if a woman of equal skill to a man played each other without seeing the opponent, the games ran about 50-50. If the woman could see she was playing a man, even with equal skill level, she would lose more often than win. Psychological reasons essentially.

Women are simply dumber than men.

That old lecturer of yours is bullshitting. I am a Grandmaster in Chess and have been playing it since I'm 4. Top players learn how to deal with pressure and bottom players don't feel much pressure anyways. Women get used to playing against men because it's all they do because of how little women actually play chess. Online chess is dominated by males as well.

Because its a male sport.

Their spatial awareness is demonstrably worse than that of men, so they're a shit at pattern recognition.

Unfortunately for those who got two X chromemesomes, most of the important things we do (as well as the more mundane ones, like playing a game of chess) rely heavily on mankind's dope af pattern recognition skills. So women a shit.

>Women are simply dumber than men

>Their spatial awareness is demonstrably worse than that of men

Nope, proven otherwise

t. 1300 Elo

You can't really ignore a whole class (200 points) of difference between top male and female players though. Yifan-Carlsen, Polgar-Kasparov, Gaprindashvili-Fischer etc, all around 200 points (75% score for male player) of difference.

You can't ignore it. What you can do is attempt to explain it with good science.

I'm not sure that good science has been done yet, probably because it goes into social science, which is far too complex to actually do.

Probably related to the reason that autism predominantly affects males.

you mean more likely to not play or take it serious enough

To be quite honest family, I'm not sure about the science either.

I mean, take for example the "intimidation" theory. You know, the one where females play worse when they think they are playing a guy. There isn't a player dumb enough not to be intimidated by Carlsen, it's literally part of the game. I'm intimidated by people of my own fucking rating. I'm intimidated when playing a girl of my own rating because people will bust my balls if I lose. Psychological stability is an important part of the game. Saying "hey, they play better when they are more comfortable with the situation" doesn't really point to anything, but that's considered "good" science as opposed to "women have different brains".

smaller brains and weaker brain connections,read some books

You don't understand science. You're holding up your anecdote and some pondering as meaningful here.

Now the study might be flawed as fuck, so we examine it's methodology, try and recreate its results using different methodology, or try and find contradictory results, etc.

>what is online chess

pic related

they just say that to suppress facts such as the differences between men and women, negative effects of single parents and multiple sexual partners, etc.

>science is all a big feminist conspiracy

cry harder faggot

Men are often in positions where they have ample free time to practice the sport whereas women dont.

Women are discouraged from playing a "man's sport" so they on average have less play time and many fewer female chess players.

Men have been playing it for centurie longer than women, women just recently have begun to play.

All of the strategies currently developed were developed by men and so they dont synchronize with our brains.

Chess is just very patriarchial in general and is thus set up in a way to give men an advantage at playing it, as it was created by men.

The top chess trainers in the world are very draconian and refuse to train women at the sport, thus giving men another advantage.

Prodigious women are often encouraged to play other sports, while prodigious men play chess.

As you can see women do have an disadvantage, but not because they have a defect in their brains.

It's fun to be manly and hate on women all the time but we should try and be at least a bit accurate or else people will actually believe this.

...

>[Settings][home]
>Veeky Forums
you wish gay boy bet you have a small penis

whats wrong little man afraid to take off your shirt at the pool?

hope you dropped that class after that

those are ridiculous far-fetched reasons. especially the last ones: women are far worse than men in ALL sports and competitive activities.

I think it's just raw numbers - fewer women are interested in Chess (they have man-catching to do to secure their lifestyle), but when they are; Judit Polgar was what? #6 in her prime and her two sisters were pretty decent too... maybe if more fathers used their daughters as a psychology experiment, there would be more world class female Chess players?

Men are more competitive, and do better in competitive environments. Women are more cooperative and do better in careers which emphasize cooperation. Highly competitive careers are more well paying and prestigious since it's seen as more difficult work. This applies to chess, sports, high level CEOs and other women deficient jobs.

This is the explanation I adhere to, the more male-dominated an intellectual activity, the more autistic it is. Mathematicians actually are more autistic on average, for instance, and autism supposedly helps with detail-oriented IT work.

To paraphrase Camille Paglia, there are so few female Newtons because there are so few female Chris-chans.

Men have higher levels of testosterone and therefore more muscle