6 ms·

Why are tournaments (or rankings; it's hard to tell from the article) sexed in the first place?

obstinate 10y ago
I believe, but am not sure, that the tournament and ratings are both non-gendered. But one can look at the list of rated players and observe who the top rated woman is on that list.
- lultimouomo 10y ago
  > [Hou] recently left the women's chess circuit for mixed events where she can compete against men It looks from the article like there is indeed a women-only circuit.
  - obstinate 10y ago
    Ah yes. That does not surprise me. I thought that the person I was responding to was asking about this tournament specifically.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  They talk in the article about how she worked to get OUT of gendered tournaments. This one isn't gendered, but it seems that there's a ghettoization of women in chess that she's working against.
  - mynameishere 10y ago
    ghettoization I'm pretty sure they set up female tournaments in order to encourage women to develop interest and skill in the game. But, no good deed unpunished.
maxxxxx 10y ago
In chess this makes no sense. I can see that in other sports women are physically at a disadvantage but chess?
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  The simple fact is yes, for whatever reasons, women are physically disadvantaged at chess. Regardless of how shocking that is. (Cue "differ t oppprtunities", "different emphasis" etc. which I am very much willing to listen to cited arguments for).
  - dsacco 10y ago
    Even if you intend to have a good faith discussion about gender dimorphism in chess (whether it be intrinsic or extrinsic), the resulting thread has a high potential for descending into ideological chaos. I'd recommend not taking the stand that "women are physically disadvantaged in chess" is a "simple fact." You welcomed citations for reasons why that may or may not be - but much like sociological studies across ethnic differences in accomplishment, studies across gender differences accomplishment for non-physical activity are going to be, shall we say, "muddled." People may not be able to levy citations that argue against that thesis, but it's still a very difficult thesis to defend both socially and rhetorically. Engaging in dialectics about it is unlikely to be productive, and I think it's probably more fair to take an even ground in the absence of compelling evidence on other side. Extrinsically, yes, women display collective disparity in overall chess accomplishment. But we cannot infer anything about womens' chess ability intrinsically unless we have more women in chess. Specifically, we cannot infer anything physically about the female brain that would demonstrate a disadvantage. This doesn't mean you're wrong; it just means that it's so emotionally loaded, and so devoid of clear, replicable data that even a debate with citations will probably be disappointing at best, and personally insulting at worst.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      >This doesn't mean you're wrong; it just means that it's so emotionally loaded, and so devoid of clear, replicable data that even a debate with citations will probably be disappointing at best, and personally insulting at worst. That's right. If one said women are better home makers, teachers, and parents, people would either agree with you or say you're being sexist. What is wrong with teaching, parenting or home making? Without taking a position on whether men are better than women at chess, why does it even matter if women are better at some things and men at others? It's so overwhelmingly political and emotional, and why should women be ashamed to be good parents or home makers? Those are no less respectable than any other occupation. However, as you said, you can't even touch this topic without getting in trouble.
nilkn 10y ago
The major titles, tournaments, and ratings aren't gendered and haven't been for a long time. That said, it is still the case that today's active male players tend to be overwhelmingly better than active female players at chess, so separate tournaments and titles were specifically created just for women. No women are restricted from the "main" tournaments or the "main" titles, though. It is entirely possible for a woman to dethrone Magnus Carlsen as World Chess Champion -- it's just never happened before. As for why this discrepancy exists, that's really a very different question, and it's one that I don't know the answer to. There are potentially many factors at play. It could be as innocent as there are many more male players than female, so the odds are much higher for super-high-skill players to emerge in the male population than the female population.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  This is the same reason virtually all gendered rankings exist, e.g. for swimming.
  - crooked-v 10y ago
    Physical sports have the added factor that men usually have a much easier time building and maintaining muscle mass than women, as well as usually being taller and so benefiting from more leverage with longer limbs.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      Are you suggesting there are no mental equivalents to your statements?
- bcg1 10y ago
  The first chapter of Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers has a plausible explanation... he gives an example of how successful hockey players are disproportionately born in the months of January, February, and March. To poorly summarize the explanation, it is that the kids who started out with a slight advantage (i.e., being slightly older and bigger than the other kids) have their advantages multiplied over time because they are singled out for extra training and opportunities for growth (all-star games, travel teams, etc). In the case of chess, it is possible that the initial slight advantage (being a boy) does not even exist, but is only perceived, but if boys receive more encouragement, training, and opportunities than girls, the end result could be the same.

I believe, but am not sure, that the tournament and ratings are both non-gendered. But one can look at the list of rated players and observe who the top rated woman is on that list.

lultimouomo 10y ago
> [Hou] recently left the women's chess circuit for mixed events where she can compete against men It looks from the article like there is indeed a women-only circuit.
- obstinate 10y ago
  Ah yes. That does not surprise me. I thought that the person I was responding to was asking about this tournament specifically.
sdenton4 10y ago
They talk in the article about how she worked to get OUT of gendered tournaments. This one isn't gendered, but it seems that there's a ghettoization of women in chess that she's working against.
- mynameishere 10y ago
  ghettoization I'm pretty sure they set up female tournaments in order to encourage women to develop interest and skill in the game. But, no good deed unpunished.

maxxxxx 10y ago

In chess this makes no sense. I can see that in other sports women are physically at a disadvantage but chess?

1_2__3 10y ago
The simple fact is yes, for whatever reasons, women are physically disadvantaged at chess. Regardless of how shocking that is. (Cue "differ t oppprtunities", "different emphasis" etc. which I am very much willing to listen to cited arguments for).
- dsacco 10y ago
  Even if you intend to have a good faith discussion about gender dimorphism in chess (whether it be intrinsic or extrinsic), the resulting thread has a high potential for descending into ideological chaos. I'd recommend not taking the stand that "women are physically disadvantaged in chess" is a "simple fact." You welcomed citations for reasons why that may or may not be - but much like sociological studies across ethnic differences in accomplishment, studies across gender differences accomplishment for non-physical activity are going to be, shall we say, "muddled." People may not be able to levy citations that argue against that thesis, but it's still a very difficult thesis to defend both socially and rhetorically. Engaging in dialectics about it is unlikely to be productive, and I think it's probably more fair to take an even ground in the absence of compelling evidence on other side. Extrinsically, yes, women display collective disparity in overall chess accomplishment. But we cannot infer anything about womens' chess ability intrinsically unless we have more women in chess. Specifically, we cannot infer anything physically about the female brain that would demonstrate a disadvantage. This doesn't mean you're wrong; it just means that it's so emotionally loaded, and so devoid of clear, replicable data that even a debate with citations will probably be disappointing at best, and personally insulting at worst.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    >This doesn't mean you're wrong; it just means that it's so emotionally loaded, and so devoid of clear, replicable data that even a debate with citations will probably be disappointing at best, and personally insulting at worst. That's right. If one said women are better home makers, teachers, and parents, people would either agree with you or say you're being sexist. What is wrong with teaching, parenting or home making? Without taking a position on whether men are better than women at chess, why does it even matter if women are better at some things and men at others? It's so overwhelmingly political and emotional, and why should women be ashamed to be good parents or home makers? Those are no less respectable than any other occupation. However, as you said, you can't even touch this topic without getting in trouble.

nilkn 10y ago

The major titles, tournaments, and ratings aren't gendered and haven't been for a long time. That said, it is still the case that today's active male players tend to be overwhelmingly better than active female players at chess, so separate tournaments and titles were specifically created just for women. No women are restricted from the "main" tournaments or the "main" titles, though. It is entirely possible for a woman to dethrone Magnus Carlsen as World Chess Champion -- it's just never happened before. As for why this discrepancy exists, that's really a very different question, and it's one that I don't know the answer to. There are potentially many factors at play. It could be as innocent as there are many more male players than female, so the odds are much higher for super-high-skill players to emerge in the male population than the female population.

paulddraper 10y ago
This is the same reason virtually all gendered rankings exist, e.g. for swimming.
- crooked-v 10y ago
  Physical sports have the added factor that men usually have a much easier time building and maintaining muscle mass than women, as well as usually being taller and so benefiting from more leverage with longer limbs.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Are you suggesting there are no mental equivalents to your statements?
bcg1 10y ago
The first chapter of Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers has a plausible explanation... he gives an example of how successful hockey players are disproportionately born in the months of January, February, and March. To poorly summarize the explanation, it is that the kids who started out with a slight advantage (i.e., being slightly older and bigger than the other kids) have their advantages multiplied over time because they are singled out for extra training and opportunities for growth (all-star games, travel teams, etc). In the case of chess, it is possible that the initial slight advantage (being a boy) does not even exist, but is only perceived, but if boys receive more encouragement, training, and opportunities than girls, the end result could be the same.