Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Trans players in chess

@felixnothus

Your whole argument is that the IQ bell curve states that men are more likely to be either idiots or geniuses, while women tend to be more average intelligence.

But you've been dodging quite a lot of questions here - mainly the biggest unanswered one: what is the correlation between IQ and chess? Do the two have to be directly related?

Edited to add that according to the IQ bell curve which you continuously cited for why there are biological differences (which IQ is not directly related to chess ability) it would actually say that there are no differences between men and women at chess.

If we assumed a direct relationship between IQ bell curve and chess AND assume that sexism and lack of participation in chess does not play a part, we would understand that the majority of 400-1000s here on Lichess are men. The majority of 2000-3000s are also men.

Everyone else in the middle?

Well, according to the bell curve, there's no difference. In other words, there is no biological difference - unless we want to count the two extremes which cancel each other out there is no real reason that men are "better" at chess.

Also, what makes you think there are enough trans chess players in FIDE to be able to get "bad actors"?

Chess is a sport, sure, but it's a mental one. If we are really going by the bell curve, you would be proving yourself wrong.

@felixnothus Your whole argument is that the IQ bell curve states that men are more likely to be either idiots or geniuses, while women tend to be more average intelligence. But you've been dodging quite a lot of questions here - mainly the biggest unanswered one: what is the correlation between IQ and chess? Do the two have to be directly related? Edited to add that according to the IQ bell curve which you continuously cited for why there are biological differences (which IQ is not directly related to chess ability) it would actually say that there are no differences between men and women at chess. If we assumed a direct relationship between IQ bell curve and chess AND assume that sexism and lack of participation in chess does not play a part, we would understand that the majority of 400-1000s here on Lichess are men. The majority of 2000-3000s are also men. Everyone else in the middle? Well, according to the bell curve, there's no difference. In other words, there is no biological difference - unless we want to count the two extremes which cancel each other out there is no real reason that men are "better" at chess. Also, what makes you think there are enough trans chess players in FIDE to be able to get "bad actors"? Chess is a sport, sure, but it's a mental one. If we are really going by the bell curve, you would be proving yourself wrong.

@TjoffenPD said in #138:

Thank you for your response.

I still believe that this separation ultimately reinforces the very stereotypes and cultural norms we aim to dismantle and that's why it should be the starting action.

To illustrate my point, let's consider an analogy involving racial segregation. Suppose we had a separate category in chess for black players because the community, traditionally dominated by white players, made black players feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. Wouldn't this segregation reinforce racial biases and hinder the progress toward genuine integration and equality within the chess community?

Here is the question to consider regarding this analogy:

Would you support creating a separate category for black players even as a short-term solution? If the answer is no, what is the logical difference in having a separate category for women?

By the way, if you want we can try to make an experiment and take this suggestion ("Let's create a separate category for Black players / players of color because of the historical racism so they can feel comfortable and welcome") to any social media and see what happens. Although I would definitely not be using any of my social media accounts for that.

For your first point I disagree that it constitutes the level of segregation you might be suggesting it to be. Even with the women's category in place it is common for many tournaments that aren't in major cities to not have a womens section or rather to have it broken down by age bracket. I can only speak for myself and the accounts I've read but I would imagine that almost all women who play over the board chess will still play more men than women. The exceptions I'd imagine would be those who play in the womens category for prize money at the upper end. This does diminish the effectiveness of the womens category for the purposes I laid out in many rural areas, but I'd still say that it is a nice option to have for those it is available to. I think introducing age bracket categories for younger players in many instances at these small tournaments solve some of the issues without the need for a womens section and if it were to be abolished.

As for the idea of a racial minority driven chess space, I think the issue is that it would have to differ nation to nation, and it would only effect nations that both have a substantial racial (or even ethnic) minority population and it is the case that the minority were historically marginalized in a way that precluded them from being able to play chess. There is also the politics of whether a minority race has been marginalized or not which would spark substantial controversy if imposed on a state like Singapore in relation to the Malay or Tamil communities. I think such an idea in theory is something I wouldn't be against, if for example, in major cities there was occasionally tournaments exclusive to POC - the issue is that as I understand American law such events might just be outright illegal. The more I try and piece together the hypothetical the more difficult and distinct it becomes from the womens category in chess. I don't think this is quite the answer you were expecting and I'd understand if I got pushback for it.

Ultimately, as I said in earlier posts, much of the difference between men and women in chess performance comes from economic barriers and social norms in many places favoring men irt being supported pursuing chess. These issues are not internal to the Chess world and are downstream of culture, legislation, economics, etc with FIDE and national chess federations only serving to try and provide a safe environment for people to play in - and frankly I think they've done a horrible job at that with or without the women's category, I just think that the practical benefits of the category currently outweigh it's negatives.

@TjoffenPD said in #138: > Thank you for your response. > > I still believe that this separation ultimately reinforces the very stereotypes and cultural norms we aim to dismantle and that's why it should be the starting action. > > To illustrate my point, let's consider an analogy involving racial segregation. Suppose we had a separate category in chess for black players because the community, traditionally dominated by white players, made black players feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. Wouldn't this segregation reinforce racial biases and hinder the progress toward genuine integration and equality within the chess community? > > Here is the question to consider regarding this analogy: > > Would you support creating a separate category for black players even as a short-term solution? If the answer is no, what is the logical difference in having a separate category for women? > > By the way, if you want we can try to make an experiment and take this suggestion ("Let's create a separate category for Black players / players of color because of the historical racism so they can feel comfortable and welcome") to any social media and see what happens. Although I would definitely not be using any of my social media accounts for that. For your first point I disagree that it constitutes the level of segregation you might be suggesting it to be. Even with the women's category in place it is common for many tournaments that aren't in major cities to not have a womens section or rather to have it broken down by age bracket. I can only speak for myself and the accounts I've read but I would imagine that almost all women who play over the board chess will still play more men than women. The exceptions I'd imagine would be those who play in the womens category for prize money at the upper end. This does diminish the effectiveness of the womens category for the purposes I laid out in many rural areas, but I'd still say that it is a nice option to have for those it is available to. I think introducing age bracket categories for younger players in many instances at these small tournaments solve some of the issues without the need for a womens section and if it were to be abolished. As for the idea of a racial minority driven chess space, I think the issue is that it would have to differ nation to nation, and it would only effect nations that both have a substantial racial (or even ethnic) minority population and it is the case that the minority were historically marginalized in a way that precluded them from being able to play chess. There is also the politics of whether a minority race has been marginalized or not which would spark substantial controversy if imposed on a state like Singapore in relation to the Malay or Tamil communities. I think such an idea in theory is something I wouldn't be against, if for example, in major cities there was occasionally tournaments exclusive to POC - the issue is that as I understand American law such events might just be outright illegal. The more I try and piece together the hypothetical the more difficult and distinct it becomes from the womens category in chess. I don't think this is quite the answer you were expecting and I'd understand if I got pushback for it. Ultimately, as I said in earlier posts, much of the difference between men and women in chess performance comes from economic barriers and social norms in many places favoring men irt being supported pursuing chess. These issues are not internal to the Chess world and are downstream of culture, legislation, economics, etc with FIDE and national chess federations only serving to try and provide a safe environment for people to play in - and frankly I think they've done a horrible job at that with or without the women's category, I just think that the practical benefits of the category currently outweigh it's negatives.

@Relmcheatham said in #142:

As for the idea of a racial minority driven chess space, I think the issue is that it would have to differ nation to nation, and it would only effect nations that both have a substantial racial (or even ethnic) minority population and it is the case that the minority were historically marginalized in a way that precluded them from being able to play chess. There is also the politics of whether a minority race has been marginalized or not which would spark substantial controversy if imposed on a state like Singapore in relation to the Malay or Tamil communities. I think such an idea in theory is something I wouldn't be against, if for example, in major cities there was occasionally tournaments exclusive to POC - the issue is that as I understand American law such events might just be outright illegal. The more I try and piece together the hypothetical the more difficult and distinct it becomes from the womens category in chess. I don't think this is quite the answer you were expecting and I'd understand if I got pushback for it.

So what you're saying is that you think a racial minority space is good? That sounds good in theory, and I'd agree, except for a couple things:

  1. Rating. If someone plays exclusively in a small area they either become really overrated or really underrated if the variety of players is not enough to give them a more accurate rating.

  2. Is it really beneficial? If you give an already discriminated group a segregated space to play and call it "separate but equal"....well, doesn't that sound like a certain other series of laws back in the 1960s in America?

If the country is trying to protect its minority who are discriminated against - who is stopping the country from discriminating themselves?

To me it just kind of feels like something well intentioned that may very well turn into a modern Jim Crow if done badly - which as we know, good intentions are often executed badly.

@Relmcheatham said in #142: > > As for the idea of a racial minority driven chess space, I think the issue is that it would have to differ nation to nation, and it would only effect nations that both have a substantial racial (or even ethnic) minority population and it is the case that the minority were historically marginalized in a way that precluded them from being able to play chess. There is also the politics of whether a minority race has been marginalized or not which would spark substantial controversy if imposed on a state like Singapore in relation to the Malay or Tamil communities. I think such an idea in theory is something I wouldn't be against, if for example, in major cities there was occasionally tournaments exclusive to POC - the issue is that as I understand American law such events might just be outright illegal. The more I try and piece together the hypothetical the more difficult and distinct it becomes from the womens category in chess. I don't think this is quite the answer you were expecting and I'd understand if I got pushback for it. > So what you're saying is that you think a racial minority space is good? That sounds good in theory, and I'd agree, except for a couple things: 1) Rating. If someone plays exclusively in a small area they either become really overrated or really underrated if the variety of players is not enough to give them a more accurate rating. 2) Is it really beneficial? If you give an already discriminated group a segregated space to play and call it "separate but equal"....well, doesn't that sound like a certain other series of laws back in the 1960s in America? If the country is trying to protect its minority who are discriminated against - who is stopping the country from discriminating themselves? To me it just kind of feels like something well intentioned that may very well turn into a modern Jim Crow if done badly - which as we know, good intentions are often executed badly.

@greenteakitten said in #143:

So what you're saying is that you think a racial minority space is good? That sounds good in theory, and I'd agree, except for a couple things:

  1. Rating. If someone plays exclusively in a small area they either become really overrated or really underrated if the variety of players is not enough to give them a more accurate rating.

  2. Is it really beneficial? If you give an already discriminated group a segregated space to play and call it "separate but equal"....well, doesn't that sound like a certain other series of laws back in the 1960s in America?

If the country is trying to protect its minority who are discriminated against - who is stopping the country from discriminating themselves?

To me it just kind of feels like something well intentioned that may very well turn into a modern Jim Crow if done badly - which as we know, good intentions are often executed badly.

I'm very aware of separate but equal doctrine and the steps taken historically to reinforce racial segregation after the civil rights act and brown v board of education. I am contending that here it is not that way due to how at any time a woman could opt to participate in tournaments in the open category, and that a similar system for any minority group would be presumed to keep this. Part of why I envisioned it as more of an occasional tournament held on its own than a separate bracket are for many of the other reasons you brought up - which is in line with the original womens tournaments in chess which were more about sponsoring marginalized players to demonstrate their playing ability together.

If something would run counter to promoting the cultivation of a secure and inclusive space in the long term, I wouldn't support it. In that answer I engaged with the hypothetical proposed and came to the conclusion that it could not take the same form, but this guiding principle remains the same. I think that categories for marginalized groups help to foster spaces for those marginalized groups within the chess community. With the carving out of space as has already been done by the womens category, many players who would be ignored in the open category are players who frequently inspire younger generations of women to help reach a point where Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan are not "exceptions". The issue in this example that I acknowledge for my side of the argument is that such a future might see FIDE opt to keep the womens division well past it's currently intended usage for some monetary/advertising/etc reason that is less about the status of women in chess and more about the role of womens tournaments in broadcasting.

On the other side of things I would likewise ask you @TjoffenPD how you envision the process of reaching a more positive chess community if the first step is abolishing the women's division? I don't quite see the throughline from start to finish for how this will reach that end goal successfully.

@greenteakitten said in #143: > So what you're saying is that you think a racial minority space is good? That sounds good in theory, and I'd agree, except for a couple things: > > 1) Rating. If someone plays exclusively in a small area they either become really overrated or really underrated if the variety of players is not enough to give them a more accurate rating. > > 2) Is it really beneficial? If you give an already discriminated group a segregated space to play and call it "separate but equal"....well, doesn't that sound like a certain other series of laws back in the 1960s in America? > > If the country is trying to protect its minority who are discriminated against - who is stopping the country from discriminating themselves? > > To me it just kind of feels like something well intentioned that may very well turn into a modern Jim Crow if done badly - which as we know, good intentions are often executed badly. I'm very aware of separate but equal doctrine and the steps taken historically to reinforce racial segregation after the civil rights act and brown v board of education. I am contending that here it is not that way due to how at any time a woman could opt to participate in tournaments in the open category, and that a similar system for any minority group would be presumed to keep this. Part of why I envisioned it as more of an occasional tournament held on its own than a separate bracket are for many of the other reasons you brought up - which is in line with the original womens tournaments in chess which were more about sponsoring marginalized players to demonstrate their playing ability together. If something would run counter to promoting the cultivation of a secure and inclusive space in the long term, I wouldn't support it. In that answer I engaged with the hypothetical proposed and came to the conclusion that it could not take the same form, but this guiding principle remains the same. I think that categories for marginalized groups help to foster spaces for those marginalized groups within the chess community. With the carving out of space as has already been done by the womens category, many players who would be ignored in the open category are players who frequently inspire younger generations of women to help reach a point where Judit Polgar and Hou Yifan are not "exceptions". The issue in this example that I acknowledge for my side of the argument is that such a future might see FIDE opt to keep the womens division well past it's currently intended usage for some monetary/advertising/etc reason that is less about the status of women in chess and more about the role of womens tournaments in broadcasting. On the other side of things I would likewise ask you @TjoffenPD how you envision the process of reaching a more positive chess community if the first step is abolishing the women's division? I don't quite see the throughline from start to finish for how this will reach that end goal successfully.

@greenteakitten said in #141:

@felixnothus

Your whole argument is that the IQ bell curve states that men are more likely to be either idiots or geniuses, while women tend to be more average intelligence.

But you've been dodging quite a lot of questions here - mainly the biggest unanswered one: what is the correlation between IQ and chess? Do the two have to be directly related?

I haven't dodged any questions and am happy to address them- you are literally the first person to ask.

What's the link between the IQ bellcurve and chess?
IQ measures things such as Pattern recognition, Logical thinking, Memory, Creativity, Analytical thinking and Working memory and Spacial awareness.
These are all things that are directly linked to chess ability are they not?

Chess is pretty much a game where your potential to be good at it depends on your potential to be a genius.
Logically thinking about what the IQ bellcurve suggests, is that you're going to find a much higher percentage of males in the genius category than females, and in the upper echelons of competition is going to be dominated by males, in the top 100 competitors you might expect to find 1 or 2 females in a good year, and hey looking at last years FIDE results? Not 1 female in the top 100. Sadly the top female is only just shy of the top 100 and if they made it top 200 you'd see a few more women but alas, the top 100, dominated by males.

Either this is the most amazing coincidence in the world or the fact it follows what you'd expect to see from the IQ bellcurve should really explain itself.

Edited to add that according to the IQ bell curve which you continuously cited for why there are biological differences (which IQ is not directly related to chess ability) it would actually say that there are no differences between men and women at chess.

Continiously cited? I literally brought it up a total of: ONCE.

And I just explained yes, its directly linked to IQ and it does suggest that in the upper echelons of thinkers, its going to be dominated by men and thats not to say there aren't brilliant women chess players, I have nothing but love and respect for Judith Polgar and shes arguably on par with Magnus Carlson or at the very least is skilled enough to stand a fair chance against him.

But that is literally what the curve explains- yes women do have the potential and ability to be as good as men when it comes to IQ, but theres going to be far, far less women then men that have that same potential because theres just more male geniuses than females.

If we assumed a direct relationship between IQ bell curve and chess AND assume that sexism and lack of participation in chess does not play a part, we would understand that the majority of 400-1000s here on Lichess are men. The majority of 2000-3000s are also men.

You'd also have to assume there is an equal amount of men and women interested in chess- but its not, there isn't an equal distribution, its very apparent that generally speaking, its males that are more interested in chess and thats pretty apparent- whether you want to call it the result of sexism or the result of natural preferences between the sexes is superfluous- at the end of the day, there are just more men playing than women, so you would expect an even bigger gap between the sexes in the upper echelons of chess competition just because theres higher odds of a man being there.

Everyone else in the middle?

Uh, it follows a bell curve. You expect everyone else to be spread out among the curve.

Well, according to the bell curve, there's no difference. In other words, there is no biological difference - unless we want to count the two extremes which cancel each other out there is no real reason that men are "better" at chess.

I don't think that's what the bell curve is saying, its saying that you're more likely to find geniuses and idiots among males but when it comes to the average chess player, you'd expect to find roughly similar numbers of males of females- that is, all things being equal- which they are not, because more men play than women as previously brought up, so in reality, you're just going to find more men everywhere in the different skill levels of chess because there is just more men playing chess.

Also, what makes you think there are enough trans chess players in FIDE to be able to get "bad actors"?

That's the point- you don't have to have gender dysphoria to pretend that you're trans if theres money on the line.
If people can get an edge in any sport where there is incentive to cheat, people will cheat. There doesn't have to be ANY trans players in chess if one day, for no reason at all, they decided that trans players are allowed to play with women- suddenly you'd find there are now going to be trans players competing where yesterday, there were none.

Chess is a sport, sure, but it's a mental one. If we are really going by the bell curve, you would be proving yourself wrong.

Chess. Mental. Sport.

But nothing to do with IQ. But it's mental. Because your mind, your brain, has nothing to do with IQ.
.........

Yeah... why do I feel like you're gas lighting here? Weird.

@greenteakitten said in #141: > @felixnothus > > Your whole argument is that the IQ bell curve states that men are more likely to be either idiots or geniuses, while women tend to be more average intelligence. > > But you've been dodging quite a lot of questions here - mainly the biggest unanswered one: what is the correlation between IQ and chess? Do the two have to be directly related? I haven't dodged any questions and am happy to address them- you are literally the first person to ask. What's the link between the IQ bellcurve and chess? IQ measures things such as Pattern recognition, Logical thinking, Memory, Creativity, Analytical thinking and Working memory and Spacial awareness. These are all things that are directly linked to chess ability are they not? Chess is pretty much a game where your potential to be good at it depends on your potential to be a genius. Logically thinking about what the IQ bellcurve suggests, is that you're going to find a much higher percentage of males in the genius category than females, and in the upper echelons of competition is going to be dominated by males, in the top 100 competitors you might expect to find 1 or 2 females in a good year, and hey looking at last years FIDE results? Not 1 female in the top 100. Sadly the top female is only just shy of the top 100 and if they made it top 200 you'd see a few more women but alas, the top 100, dominated by males. Either this is the most amazing coincidence in the world or the fact it follows what you'd expect to see from the IQ bellcurve should really explain itself. > > Edited to add that according to the IQ bell curve which you continuously cited for why there are biological differences (which IQ is not directly related to chess ability) it would actually say that there are no differences between men and women at chess. Continiously cited? I literally brought it up a total of: ONCE. And I just explained yes, its directly linked to IQ and it does suggest that in the upper echelons of thinkers, its going to be dominated by men and thats not to say there aren't brilliant women chess players, I have nothing but love and respect for Judith Polgar and shes arguably on par with Magnus Carlson or at the very least is skilled enough to stand a fair chance against him. But that is literally what the curve explains- yes women do have the potential and ability to be as good as men when it comes to IQ, but theres going to be far, far less women then men that have that same potential because theres just more male geniuses than females. > > If we assumed a direct relationship between IQ bell curve and chess AND assume that sexism and lack of participation in chess does not play a part, we would understand that the majority of 400-1000s here on Lichess are men. The majority of 2000-3000s are also men. You'd also have to assume there is an equal amount of men and women interested in chess- but its not, there isn't an equal distribution, its very apparent that generally speaking, its males that are more interested in chess and thats pretty apparent- whether you want to call it the result of sexism or the result of natural preferences between the sexes is superfluous- at the end of the day, there are just more men playing than women, so you would expect an even bigger gap between the sexes in the upper echelons of chess competition just because theres higher odds of a man being there. > Everyone else in the middle? Uh, it follows a bell curve. You expect everyone else to be spread out among the curve. > > Well, according to the bell curve, there's no difference. In other words, there is no biological difference - unless we want to count the two extremes which cancel each other out there is no real reason that men are "better" at chess. I don't think that's what the bell curve is saying, its saying that you're more likely to find geniuses and idiots among males but when it comes to the average chess player, you'd expect to find roughly similar numbers of males of females- that is, all things being equal- which they are not, because more men play than women as previously brought up, so in reality, you're just going to find more men everywhere in the different skill levels of chess because there is just more men playing chess. > Also, what makes you think there are enough trans chess players in FIDE to be able to get "bad actors"? That's the point- you don't have to have gender dysphoria to pretend that you're trans if theres money on the line. If people can get an edge in any sport where there is incentive to cheat, people will cheat. There doesn't have to be ANY trans players in chess if one day, for no reason at all, they decided that trans players are allowed to play with women- suddenly you'd find there are now going to be trans players competing where yesterday, there were none. > > Chess is a sport, sure, but it's a mental one. If we are really going by the bell curve, you would be proving yourself wrong. Chess. Mental. Sport. But nothing to do with IQ. But it's mental. Because your mind, your brain, has nothing to do with IQ. ......... Yeah... why do I feel like you're gas lighting here? Weird.

@felixnothus

You don't understand what I'm trying to say.

You are saying that men have a biological advantage to women. But if by the bell curve, the average man is the same as the average woman, then whether or not the top is populated by men or not doesn't really matter.

The fact that the top 100 is populated by men is more because of sample size - there aren't enough women in chess, so we don't know how many could have been geniuses and made it to the top.

Of course, we could sit here and argue all day about biology. But the reality is that the average man is the same as the average women. The fact that there are more geniuses in the male population doesn't change anything because there are also more idiots.

Your line of thinking is a slippery slope - you assume that many more trans people will appear the second that they are allowed in the women's section.

Except

  1. The idea that men > women is common, yes, but it's not an established fact. While IQ may influence chess, it is not the deciding factor. And the fact that we don't have enough women to measure whether or not women are actually worse at chess makes it kind of hard to measure. Think about it this way: if we had an equal amount of women as we had men in chess, eventually there'll be one female Magnus or one female Hikaru. Doesn't matter how much "smarter" men are, there will be one. And we would see them now....except for the fact that we don't have enough people to measure it.

  2. Not everyone wants to take advantage of things. It's kind of odd to assume that a bunch of men will magically take advantage of it.

Besides, wasn't it said somewhere that women that exclusively played in women sections might even be underrated? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kind of feels like a "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of situation for anyone that wants to take advantage of it.

  1. I believe you mentioned pheromones influencing chess. but gave no proof for how or why they influence chess. Your assumption is that because chess is a sport, it goes the same way as all other sports do.

  2. If chess was really a sport where trans women should be kept separate, then why don't we have a men's section? Clearly all the major chess bodies have decided that men and women aren't different, and that segregation is just so women can have a women-only space - if that wasn't the case, they would get a men's section to go with it too.

It just seems to me that you're citing a lot of biology without really saying why that's so important. I don't think every person is just waiting for a chance to game the system. Not to mention, would you really want to live out the rest of your life as a woman so you could get a tiny advantage in chess?

Considering the fact that the average man = the average woman, if an average man decides one day he wants to be a woman to get an advantage, he's going to get 0 advantage. Add on top of that he now needs to play the part.

In other words, whether or not you support trans doesn't matter. There's absolutely no reason I can see here not to let people play - and for good measure, just abolish the whole women's section.

@felixnothus You don't understand what I'm trying to say. You are saying that men have a biological advantage to women. But if by the bell curve, the average man is the same as the average woman, then whether or not the top is populated by men or not doesn't really matter. The fact that the top 100 is populated by men is more because of sample size - there aren't enough women in chess, so we don't know how many could have been geniuses and made it to the top. Of course, we could sit here and argue all day about biology. But the reality is that the average man is the same as the average women. The fact that there are more geniuses in the male population doesn't change anything because there are also more idiots. Your line of thinking is a slippery slope - you assume that many more trans people will appear the second that they are allowed in the women's section. Except 1) The idea that men > women is common, yes, but it's not an established fact. While IQ may influence chess, it is not the deciding factor. And the fact that we don't have enough women to measure whether or not women are actually worse at chess makes it kind of hard to measure. Think about it this way: if we had an equal amount of women as we had men in chess, eventually there'll be one female Magnus or one female Hikaru. Doesn't matter how much "smarter" men are, there will be one. And we would see them now....except for the fact that we don't have enough people to measure it. 2) Not everyone wants to take advantage of things. It's kind of odd to assume that a bunch of men will magically take advantage of it. Besides, wasn't it said somewhere that women that exclusively played in women sections might even be underrated? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kind of feels like a "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of situation for anyone that wants to take advantage of it. 3) I believe you mentioned pheromones influencing chess. but gave no proof for how or why they influence chess. Your assumption is that because chess is a sport, it goes the same way as all other sports do. 4) If chess was really a sport where trans women should be kept separate, then why don't we have a men's section? Clearly all the major chess bodies have decided that men and women aren't different, and that segregation is just so women can have a women-only space - if that wasn't the case, they would get a men's section to go with it too. It just seems to me that you're citing a lot of biology without really saying why that's so important. I don't think every person is just waiting for a chance to game the system. Not to mention, would you really want to live out the rest of your life as a woman so you could get a tiny advantage in chess? Considering the fact that the average man = the average woman, if an average man decides one day he wants to be a woman to get an advantage, he's going to get 0 advantage. Add on top of that he now needs to play the part. In other words, whether or not you support trans doesn't matter. There's absolutely no reason I can see here not to let people play - and for good measure, just abolish the whole women's section.

@Relmcheatham

While I can see your argument, I still feel that it kind of places the responsibility on FIDE and women, rather than rooting out the cause of the problem in the first place - sexism and sexual harassment.

By slowly abolishing the women's section (obviously it would have to be slow to allow people to transition) we would be able to get the same inclusive environment you were talking about.

If, like you said, Hou Yifan is not an exception, than surely we should let all the mini Hou Yifans show people that think they aren't capable that they are.

But instead we're keeping them in the Women's Section. Why not abolish the Women's Section? Then you'll be able to root out the sexists.

@Relmcheatham While I can see your argument, I still feel that it kind of places the responsibility on FIDE and women, rather than rooting out the cause of the problem in the first place - sexism and sexual harassment. By slowly abolishing the women's section (obviously it would have to be slow to allow people to transition) we would be able to get the same inclusive environment you were talking about. If, like you said, Hou Yifan is not an exception, than surely we should let all the mini Hou Yifans show people that think they aren't capable that they are. But instead we're keeping them in the Women's Section. Why not abolish the Women's Section? Then you'll be able to root out the sexists.

@felixnothus said in #100:

I believe you're being a bit paranoid here. For your idea to work, someone would need to be quite good, good enough to game the system.

If they aren't as good, there's no point in going through all this effort for no prizes, is there?

Now here's the question. How many male geniuses are willing to sacrifice their reputation, and well....manliness, to exploit a women's tournament, assuming that there is a difference?

I'm willing to bet a handsome sum that there's not enough people in the world willing to do that.

@felixnothus said in #100: I believe you're being a bit paranoid here. For your idea to work, someone would need to be quite good, good enough to game the system. If they aren't as good, there's no point in going through all this effort for no prizes, is there? Now here's the question. How many male geniuses are willing to sacrifice their reputation, and well....manliness, to exploit a women's tournament, assuming that there is a difference? I'm willing to bet a handsome sum that there's not enough people in the world willing to do that.

@greenteakitten said in #146:

@felixnothus

You don't understand what I'm trying to say.

Hmm, what a strange coincidence- I think exactly the same about you.

You are saying that men have a biological advantage to women. But if by the bell curve, the average man is the same as the average woman, then whether or not the top is populated by men or not doesn't really matter.

No, I'm saying that in the upper echelons of competition, males have an advantage over women.
We're not talking about average players here.

We're talking about the elite players- the top 0.1% of players, that play for big money.
You're conflating average players with elite players- of course the average female vs the average male is not going to matter- they're both average and have equal chances of winning.

How many elite women are there that can compete with Magnus Carlson? I can think of ONE. And she doesn't even play chess competitively anymore, so right now there are no women that can compete with Magnus.

Look at the top 100 right now- There are NO women in it.

Now, look at me- I'm a male and I'm a below average chess player. Do I think I'm better than women at chess?
No. I don't. I'm sure there are boatloads of women who are much, much better at chess than I, but you'd expect that because I'm at the level in the bellcurve where there is a majority in both men and women.

When you get to the very top of the chess world- women are close to non-existent. Because, as the bell curve suggests, there is a much higher ratio of genius male players than females.
Combined with the fact that there are just less females interested in chess- it really shouldn't surprise anyone that the top is completely and utterly dominated by males.

The fact that the top 100 is populated by men is more because of sample size - there aren't enough women in chess, so we don't know how many could have been geniuses and made it to the top.

I think I just explained this but the sake of addressing everything your saying I'll say it again:

The bell curve suggests that on average you will find way more male elites than female elites all things being equal.

But all things are not equal, I agree, and so therefore you'll see an even higher dominance of males.
But if things WERE equal- Males would still dominate females maybe, and I haven't done the math but roughly speaking, being generous here, you might find that its 10 to 1.

As it stands, its not even 100 to 1 with the way things are.

Of course, we could sit here and argue all day about biology. But the reality is that the average man is the same as the average women. The fact that there are more geniuses in the male population doesn't change anything because there are also more idiots.

Yeah... we're not talking about average players here. So lets stop bringing up the average player, because this is about competitive chess, where if you're going to be competitive and hope to win prize money, you need to be the best of the best, not average.
And once again- who dominates the best of the best?

Your line of thinking is a slippery slope - you assume that many more trans people will appear the second that they are allowed in the women's section.

Except

  1. The idea that men > women is common, yes, but it's not an established fact. While IQ may influence chess, it is not the deciding factor. And the fact that we don't have enough women to measure whether or not women are actually worse at chess makes it kind of hard to measure. Think about it this way: if we had an equal amount of women as we had men in chess, eventually there'll be one female Magnus or one female Hikaru. Doesn't matter how much "smarter" men are, there will be one. And we would see them now....except for the fact that we don't have enough people to measure it.

Once again- That's not what I'm saying. And I don't really think you're thinking about what I'm saying and are conflating issues here.

  1. Not everyone wants to take advantage of things. It's kind of odd to assume that a bunch of men will magically take advantage of it.

Oh sweet summer child- throughout all of man kinds history, where there is incentive to cheat people have cheated in every area. Sure, lets assume that the vast majority of people don't want to cheat- lets say that 99% of people don't want to cheat. There is still going to be 1% that will cheat if given the chance. That's all you need and if you're not vigilant against that 1% because you think the majority of people are fair and honest people- than that 1% will get away with cheating and that's all it takes to destroy the reputation of that game if cheaters can flourish even if they are in the minority- there will be some people that will cheat if you allow it.

Besides, wasn't it said somewhere that women that exclusively played in women sections might even be underrated? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kind of feels like a "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of situation for anyone that wants to take advantage of it.

Money, honey.
Do you know what crazy things people will do for money? Literally anything and everything if they are desperate and depraved enough and there are a lot of desperate and depraved people.
There are people who would literally shoot themselves in the foot for enough money.

  1. I believe you mentioned pheromones influencing chess. but gave no proof for how or why they influence chess. Your assumption is that because chess is a sport, it goes the same way as all other sports do.

No I didn't. At all.
Maybe you are thinking of hormones because hormones do play a role in the brain development and how one thinks and feels but its only a role and is not the end all to be all and ultimately comes down to a collection of factors that I won't bother getting into because I could literally write a book about it.

  1. If chess was really a sport where trans women should be kept separate, then why don't we have a men's section? Clearly all the major chess bodies have decided that men and women aren't different, and that segregation is just so women can have a women-only space - if that wasn't the case, they would get a men's section to go with it too.

I don't think trans people should have a separate category at all. The open category is literally open to everyone including trans- it's the trans that are complaining that they don't get to be special category and play with women.

You know who wants a womans category? Women want a womens category. But NOT ALL WOMEN. Some women, like Judith Polgar don't even bother with the womens catagory because she feels she is competitive enough to compete in the open catagory and so she does- If women didn't want a womans catagory, there wouldn't be one.

It's the women who want a womans catagory that necessitates its existence.

If all the women playing chess right now decided that they ony wanted to play in open tournaments, there wouldn't be a womans catagory there would only be open tournaments because no one would be playing the womens category.

It just seems to me that you're citing a lot of biology without really saying why that's so important. I don't think every person is just waiting for a chance to game the system. Not to mention, would you really want to live out the rest of your life as a woman so you could get a tiny advantage in chess?

You make a lot assumptions about what I'm saying and keep saying that I'm saying things that I'm not. I don't even think you're really listening and it seems to me that you're just creating straw men out of my arguments which aren't even my arguments and completely reframing what I'm saying.

Yes, OF COURSE not every person is trying to game the system- but there WILL be people who try to game the system and so one needs to do all they can to make sure these undesirables don't game the system because the more you leave things open to vulnerability the higher the chance people will exploit those vulnerabilities. That's just how it is.

Sure it would be lovely if we could all just trust everyone all the time and leave all our car doors and windows open with our valuables in it and maybe 999 people out of a thousand will be honorable enough to not steal your car or your belongings if you do so- but it only takes 1 in thousand to go around and go on a stealing spree to show what doing that is a bad idea.

You seem to think that I think that everyone is a bad person and can't be trusted- no that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that some people are opportunists and will cheat if given an opportunity and if you're not making decisions based on that fact, then you're not living in reality you're living in a fantasy world where everything is roses and rainbows and hugs and kisses all the time and no one ever does bad things at all- which I'm SURE you KNOW is NOT the case.

Considering the fact that the average man = the average woman, if an average man decides one day he wants to be a woman to get an advantage, he's going to get 0 advantage. Add on top of that he now needs to play the part.

Yeah once again, we're not talking about the average person were talking about top level competition, the best of the best of the best, the creme of the crop, where the big money and the big accolades are-

Men dominate almost exclusively in chess and other sports as well including esports where men and women are allowed to compete against each other and physical strength makes 0 difference.

There is something intrinsic to being a male that favors men to be dominant in the elite sections- its almost as if they are designed for competition as a pressure from evolutionary factors.

In other words, whether or not you support trans doesn't matter. There's absolutely no reason I can see here not to let people play - and for good measure, just abolish the whole women's section.

Cool, go ahead and abolish the womans section- it literally makes NO difference to myself. And like I said, if women didn't want there to be a womans section... there wouldn't be. So go ahead and go convince all the women not to play in the womens section and that dream will happen automatically.

Of course I'm being slightly sarcastic here because that's just not gonna happen- women WANT a special section where they have a chance to win prize money they couldn't win if they were forced to go up against the best males.

But I agree in principle totally- if we abolish the womens section, the trans people have nothing to complain about not being included because now there would only be one section to compete in which trans people are already included in.

@greenteakitten said in #146: > @felixnothus > > You don't understand what I'm trying to say. Hmm, what a strange coincidence- I think exactly the same about you. > > You are saying that men have a biological advantage to women. But if by the bell curve, the average man is the same as the average woman, then whether or not the top is populated by men or not doesn't really matter. No, I'm saying that in the upper echelons of competition, males have an advantage over women. We're not talking about average players here. We're talking about the elite players- the top 0.1% of players, that play for big money. You're conflating average players with elite players- of course the average female vs the average male is not going to matter- they're both average and have equal chances of winning. How many elite women are there that can compete with Magnus Carlson? I can think of ONE. And she doesn't even play chess competitively anymore, so right now there are no women that can compete with Magnus. Look at the top 100 right now- There are NO women in it. Now, look at me- I'm a male and I'm a below average chess player. Do I think I'm better than women at chess? No. I don't. I'm sure there are boatloads of women who are much, much better at chess than I, but you'd expect that because I'm at the level in the bellcurve where there is a majority in both men and women. When you get to the very top of the chess world- women are close to non-existent. Because, as the bell curve suggests, there is a much higher ratio of genius male players than females. Combined with the fact that there are just less females interested in chess- it really shouldn't surprise anyone that the top is completely and utterly dominated by males. > > The fact that the top 100 is populated by men is more because of sample size - there aren't enough women in chess, so we don't know how many could have been geniuses and made it to the top. I think I just explained this but the sake of addressing everything your saying I'll say it again: The bell curve suggests that on average you will find way more male elites than female elites all things being equal. But all things are not equal, I agree, and so therefore you'll see an even higher dominance of males. But if things WERE equal- Males would still dominate females maybe, and I haven't done the math but roughly speaking, being generous here, you might find that its 10 to 1. As it stands, its not even 100 to 1 with the way things are. > > Of course, we could sit here and argue all day about biology. But the reality is that the average man is the same as the average women. The fact that there are more geniuses in the male population doesn't change anything because there are also more idiots. Yeah... we're not talking about average players here. So lets stop bringing up the average player, because this is about competitive chess, where if you're going to be competitive and hope to win prize money, you need to be the best of the best, not average. And once again- who dominates the best of the best? > Your line of thinking is a slippery slope - you assume that many more trans people will appear the second that they are allowed in the women's section. > > Except > > 1) The idea that men > women is common, yes, but it's not an established fact. While IQ may influence chess, it is not the deciding factor. And the fact that we don't have enough women to measure whether or not women are actually worse at chess makes it kind of hard to measure. Think about it this way: if we had an equal amount of women as we had men in chess, eventually there'll be one female Magnus or one female Hikaru. Doesn't matter how much "smarter" men are, there will be one. And we would see them now....except for the fact that we don't have enough people to measure it. Once again- That's not what I'm saying. And I don't really think you're thinking about what I'm saying and are conflating issues here. > > 2) Not everyone wants to take advantage of things. It's kind of odd to assume that a bunch of men will magically take advantage of it. Oh sweet summer child- throughout all of man kinds history, where there is incentive to cheat people have cheated in every area. Sure, lets assume that the vast majority of people don't want to cheat- lets say that 99% of people don't want to cheat. There is still going to be 1% that will cheat if given the chance. That's all you need and if you're not vigilant against that 1% because you think the majority of people are fair and honest people- than that 1% will get away with cheating and that's all it takes to destroy the reputation of that game if cheaters can flourish even if they are in the minority- there will be some people that will cheat if you allow it. > > Besides, wasn't it said somewhere that women that exclusively played in women sections might even be underrated? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kind of feels like a "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of situation for anyone that wants to take advantage of it. Money, honey. Do you know what crazy things people will do for money? Literally anything and everything if they are desperate and depraved enough and there are a lot of desperate and depraved people. There are people who would *literally* shoot themselves in the foot for enough money. > > 3) I believe you mentioned pheromones influencing chess. but gave no proof for how or why they influence chess. Your assumption is that because chess is a sport, it goes the same way as all other sports do. No I didn't. At all. Maybe you are thinking of hormones because hormones do play a role in the brain development and how one thinks and feels but its only a role and is not the end all to be all and ultimately comes down to a collection of factors that I won't bother getting into because I could literally write a book about it. > 4) If chess was really a sport where trans women should be kept separate, then why don't we have a men's section? Clearly all the major chess bodies have decided that men and women aren't different, and that segregation is just so women can have a women-only space - if that wasn't the case, they would get a men's section to go with it too. I don't think trans people should have a separate category at all. The open category is literally open to everyone including trans- it's the trans that are complaining that they don't get to be special category and play with women. You know who wants a womans category? Women want a womens category. But NOT ALL WOMEN. Some women, like Judith Polgar don't even bother with the womens catagory because she feels she is competitive enough to compete in the open catagory and so she does- If women didn't want a womans catagory, there wouldn't be one. It's the women who *want* a womans catagory that necessitates its existence. If all the women playing chess right now decided that they ony wanted to play in open tournaments, there wouldn't be a womans catagory there would only be open tournaments because no one would be playing the womens category. > It just seems to me that you're citing a lot of biology without really saying why that's so important. I don't think every person is just waiting for a chance to game the system. Not to mention, would you really want to live out the rest of your life as a woman so you could get a tiny advantage in chess? You make a lot assumptions about what I'm saying and keep saying that I'm saying things that I'm not. I don't even think you're really listening and it seems to me that you're just creating straw men out of my arguments which aren't even my arguments and completely reframing what I'm saying. Yes, OF COURSE not every person is trying to game the system- but there WILL be people who try to game the system and so one needs to do all they can to make sure these undesirables don't game the system because the more you leave things open to vulnerability the higher the chance people will exploit those vulnerabilities. That's just how it is. Sure it would be lovely if we could all just trust everyone all the time and leave all our car doors and windows open with our valuables in it and maybe 999 people out of a thousand will be honorable enough to not steal your car or your belongings if you do so- but it only takes 1 in thousand to go around and go on a stealing spree to show what doing that is a bad idea. You seem to think that I think that everyone is a bad person and can't be trusted- no that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that some people are opportunists and will cheat if given an opportunity and if you're not making decisions based on that fact, then you're not living in reality you're living in a fantasy world where everything is roses and rainbows and hugs and kisses all the time and no one ever does bad things at all- which I'm SURE you KNOW is NOT the case. > > Considering the fact that the average man = the average woman, if an average man decides one day he wants to be a woman to get an advantage, he's going to get 0 advantage. Add on top of that he now needs to play the part. Yeah once again, we're not talking about the average person were talking about top level competition, the best of the best of the best, the creme of the crop, where the big money and the big accolades are- Men dominate almost exclusively in chess and other sports as well including esports where men and women are allowed to compete against each other and physical strength makes 0 difference. There is something intrinsic to being a male that favors men to be dominant in the elite sections- its almost as if they are designed for competition as a pressure from evolutionary factors. > In other words, whether or not you support trans doesn't matter. There's absolutely no reason I can see here not to let people play - and for good measure, just abolish the whole women's section. Cool, go ahead and abolish the womans section- it literally makes NO difference to myself. And like I said, if women didn't want there to be a womans section... there wouldn't be. So go ahead and go convince all the women not to play in the womens section and that dream will happen automatically. Of course I'm being slightly sarcastic here because that's just not gonna happen- women WANT a special section where they have a chance to win prize money they couldn't win if they were forced to go up against the best males. But I agree in principle totally- if we abolish the womens section, the trans people have nothing to complain about not being included because now there would only be one section to compete in which trans people are *already* included in.

@greenteakitten said in #148:

I believe you're being a bit paranoid here. For your idea to work, someone would need to be quite good, good enough to game the system.

If they aren't as good, there's no point in going through all this effort for no prizes, is there?

Now here's the question. How many male geniuses are willing to sacrifice their reputation, and well....manliness, to exploit a women's tournament, assuming that there is a difference?

I'm willing to bet a handsome sum that there's not enough people in the world willing to do that.

If you are number 1 already, you have absolutely no reason to cheat.

But if you're not number 1, and you want to be number 1, and money is a huge incentive to cheat, thats enough for anyone who is not number 1 to seriously consider getting whatever edge they can get to get that top prize- that's just human nature.

You're assuming that just because you would never cheat just because you are not number 1 that other people would never cheat just because they are not number 1 when... the history of everything shows that just not the case. You only need 1 person to be willing to cheat in a million people to destroy the credibility of that competition if they are able to do it and get away with it.

I'm not paranoid, I'm just stating the truth- Some people cheat and if you allow them to cheat they will.

You think I'm paranoid, I think you're being naive.

In an ideal world there would never be cheaters, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world that has people who are willing to cheat especially if there is money on the line.

But even look at online chess where there is NO MONEY on the line- there are cheaters EVERYWHERE in chess. Surely you'e come across a few cheaters playing online chess that you have been told are cheaters when they banned here on lichess- and those people cheat for absolutely no financial gain and just because they can cheat.

So add money in to the equation, which is a huge incentive to cheat, and realistically, there will be those who will cheat ,if having no money is enough for there to be cheaters already, which as you know, there very clearly and absolutely is the case...

@greenteakitten said in #148: > I believe you're being a bit paranoid here. For your idea to work, someone would need to be quite good, good enough to game the system. > > If they aren't as good, there's no point in going through all this effort for no prizes, is there? > > Now here's the question. How many male geniuses are willing to sacrifice their reputation, and well....manliness, to exploit a women's tournament, assuming that there is a difference? > > I'm willing to bet a handsome sum that there's not enough people in the world willing to do that. If you are number 1 already, you have absolutely no reason to cheat. But if you're not number 1, and you want to be number 1, and money *is* a huge incentive to cheat, thats enough for anyone who is not number 1 to seriously consider getting whatever edge they can get to get that top prize- that's just human nature. You're assuming that just because *you* would never cheat just because you are not number 1 that other people would never cheat just because they are not number 1 when... the history of *everything* shows that just not the case. You only need 1 person to be willing to cheat in a million people to destroy the credibility of that competition if they are able to do it and get away with it. I'm not paranoid, I'm just stating the truth- Some people cheat and if you allow them to cheat they will. You think I'm paranoid, I think you're being naive. In an ideal world there would never be cheaters, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world that has people who are willing to cheat especially if there is money on the line. But even look at online chess where there is NO MONEY on the line- there are cheaters EVERYWHERE in chess. Surely you'e come across a few cheaters playing online chess that you have been told are cheaters when they banned here on lichess- and those people cheat for absolutely no financial gain and just because *they can cheat*. So add money in to the equation, which is a huge incentive to cheat, and realistically, there will be those who will cheat ,if having no money is enough for there to be cheaters already, which as you know, there very clearly and absolutely is the case...

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.