Is There a Gender Gap in Chess? || Magnus Carlsen vs Judit Polgar

Download Mproov and Improve Your Chess Today! app.mproov.me/AgadKZbin1
Follow MprooV on Twitter / mproovapp Read professor Wei Ji Ma's article here en.chessbase.com/post/what-ge...
Follow me on Instagram and Twitter for extra content and notifications / agadmator
/ agadmator
Magnus Carlsen vs Judit Polgar
Cuadrangular UNAM (2012) (rapid), Mexico City MEX, rd 2, Nov-25
King's Indian Defense: Normal Variation. Rare Defenses (E90)
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. d4 O-O 6. h3 e5 7. d5 Na6 8. Be3 Qe8 9. g4 Nc5 10. Nd2 a5 11. Be2 c6 12. Rg1 Kh8 13. h4 Ng8 14. Qc2 Bd7 15. O-O-O cd5 16. Nd5 Ne6 17. h5 g5 18. Kb1 Ba4 19. b3 Bc6 20. Nb6 Rd8 21. Qc3 Nf4 22. Bf1 h6 23. Qa5 f5 24. gf5 Qh5 25. Re1 Nf6 26. Nd5 Ra8 27. Qb4 Rfd8 28. f3 Qh4 29. Rc1 Bd5 30. cd5 N4d5 31. Bg5 Qg5 32. Rg5 Nb4 33. Rg2 d5 34. ed5 Nfd5 35. Ne4 Ne3 36. f6 Bf8 37. Rh2 Rac8 38. Bc4 Nc4 39. bc4 Kg8 40. Rb2 Rc7 41. c5 Nd3 42. Rd2 Rcd7 43. c6 bc6 44. Rc6 Kf7 45. Rb6 Nc5 46. Rd7 Rd7 47. Nf2 h5 48. Rc6 Rd2 49. Nh3 Ne6 50. a4 Rh2
Read more about this tournament here en.chessbase.com/post/2nd-una...
Check out agadmator's merch here teespring.com/stores/agadmato...
teespring.com/design-with-a-s...
Mailbox where you can send stuff:
Antonio Radić
AGADMATOR d.o.o.
Franje Tuđmana 12
Croatia
48260 Križevci
p.s. this is not my home address :)
Contact me: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
Download agadmator chess clock for iOS here apps.apple.com/us/app/agadmat...
Download agadmator chess clock for Android here play.google.com/store/apps/de...
Support fishnet here lichess.org/get-fishnet
Video created by OBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you realllly enjoy my content, you're welcome to support me and my channel with a small donation via PayPal or Crypto.
Link to PayPal donation www.paypal.me/agadmator
Maiar Wallet @agadmator or get.maiar.com/referral/pv0mam...
BTC address bc1qckd3ut0hqyymzv33eus97ld8klj02xhk2kcwld
BCH address qzmfclyn69hqhjslls40r7r0dsttwe3tcsl946w4fr
LTC address Laarf1RmvCpLt2BcSwC1PBLG3hRC4HjBrz
NANO nano_1h1kgfaq88t1btwadqzx73rbha5hwbb88sxmfns851kwj8hnosdj51w388xx
Monero 4AdvvqmC4xhPyyRSAEDxTTAoXdxAtX2Py6b8Eh4EQzBLGbgo5rY5Khcap1x76JrDJH87yibAE9b6TPwTsvBAiFFCLtM8Be7
For any other currency address, contact me via [e-mail]
Check out some of the books I enjoy www.amazon.com/ideas/amzn1.ac...
Check out ALL my videos here • You Snooze, You Lose |...
Facebook: / agadmatoryoutube
Twitter: / agadmator
Instagram: / agadmator
Lichess: lichess.org/@/agadmator
Chess.com: agadmator
League of Legends: agadmator (EUNE, my friend is using my EUWE account for a couple of years now)
Blizzard: agadmator #2992
Join our Discord Server here / discord
p.s. if you work in Twitter or Instagram, help me get Verified :) "Watch me without ads on your Amazon devices (bit.ly/Agadmator_Amazon) and Roku TV (bit.ly/Agadmator_Roku)

[@SocratesAth]

"Feel free to pause the video and win this game for Judit" So this is Judit Polgar outsmarting Magnus Carlsen, and you expect _me_ to figure it out?

[@1981stonemonkey]

"There is clearly nothing to do here" :D

[@fitstar8871]

Yup u will get a million year's bonus lol

[@allancouceiro9905]

for those of you who just want to enjoy the show

[@vaishnoo1168]

@Marshall Jonyou've been spamming KZbin with the first comment saying there's a software for hack and serving comment saying it worked. The most obvious thing ever. Nobody cares about your software

[@weaponx9728]

Nothing is impossible my friend

[@baileymutai3421]

Agadmator on Carlsen :And of course Magnus loses the queen Agadmator on Other players :And of course he loses the queen and the game

[@LeventK]

You don't need a queen in chess.

[@freedomofspeech2700]

Magnus is the legend

[@leadnitrate2194]

@@LeventK I'm sure viewers of Agadmator's channel know that. He shows a Tal game at every milestone.

[@lehmcn]

@@LeventK but it sure helps a lot 🤷🏽‍♀️

[@baileymutai3421]

@@LeventK only if you have compensation ,a queen can be undoubtedly so strong

[@GreatUSTreasureHunt]

Using the young Magnus picture. Not the engine choice, but playable.

[@ashtonduda9971]

This comment 😂😂

[@philiplane2654]

This photo has never been taken again...

[@gaussdog]

Isn’t that the correct photo/age he was at the time of the tournament?

[@theo9706]

@@gaussdog yes it is i don’t know why this guy in confused

[@joepvoorburg6539]

HaHAAA

[@bowrudder899]

There is a gap between Magnus and whoever he plays.

[@jenm1]

Magnus's gender is chess.

[@itwasinthispositionerinoag7414]

0:00 Hello everyone 0:53 16:19 19:41 20:44 Article in the description 1:28 Getting back to this game 1:45 Sorry about that 3:18 Captures captures 9:58 Main idea of the capture-fest 4:23 Strike in the centre 5:06 Never been reached again 5:17 5:48 7:29 11:22 13:12 Bust open the position 5:38 Nice dog lift 5:57 Nice prophylactic move 8:14 Monster knight 8:59 One improvement too many 9:03 9:06 Completely lost 9:16 14:17 Give you a couple of seconds 9:26 14:28 Enjoy the show 10:07 Double attack 11:17 agadmator rap 11:29 Activity above all 12:44 Double up rooks on the d file 14:35 14:59 Nothing more to be done 14:37 14:45 It was in this position 15:16 20:01 So yeah 17:02 Lifetime record 17:43 Magnus is an anomaly - he's like Neo 18:28 Top 100 players of July 2005 20:36 Morphy saga

[@dimitridimitri6994]

First of all Assigning ELO rating as a random distribution itself is a flawed assumption. And the prof just went on off that flawed assumption so that conclusion is not credible. I don't know if there is or isn't a gender gap in chess, but until it's not proven I won't believe it.

[@JoeARedHawk275]

@@dimitridimitri6994 www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/women-beat-expectations-when-playing-chess-against-men.html It seems that there is a “gender gap” from all metrics. Even stereotype threat can’t explain the difference. I think it just comes down to innate and subtle differences in the way men and women think.

[@eradian1]

Ah I see you're a fellow kripparino

[@RealCurrencies]

@@JoeARedHawk275 Methinks the 11% bigger male brain might have something to do with it. Or that the vast majority of the smartest people in the world are men. Something like 95% of the smartest 1% are male.

[@JoeARedHawk275]

@@RealCurrencies Yeah, that goes back to the differences between men and women. Asians also have on average, a larger brain as well, so it wouldn’t surprise me if bigger brain=more processing power.

[@michaelmcgee335]

Judit is pure class. Seen her play in Adelaide 87' Austraian Open, she spoke to me briefly told me 500 minitures in the Kings Gamit was worth studying.

[@josephcallahan1664]

"Lots of men have a worse record against Carlsen." Indeed.

[@squealer42]

I haven't lost a single game against him.

[@ns7379]

@@squealer42 He did say lots of men & did not say all the men who play chess.

[@KingofEuropa07]

@@ns7379 whoosh

[@squealer42]

@@somebody700 If you and Magnus played your best against each other a dozen times, and you won once, would you think you're probably pretty good?

[@Lacasta-dg8sr]

Like who?

[@jesusthroughmary]

"In those days" like it's a Morphy game

[@thegorn]

This is the good stuff

[@jesusthroughmary]

@@thegorn well played

[@ballaking1000]

You’re hearing that under the wrong context... It’s not in the sense that he thinks 8 years is a ‘long time ago’, it’s because chess theory has evolved so much in the last decade (largely due to engines) and it’s because of this that in 2012, chess was played and looked at differently compared to today’s games; hence “in those days”.

[@jesusthroughmary]

@@ballaking1000 So yeah, I do have the context correct.

[@ballaking1000]

@@jesusthroughmary Clearly not, given your OP.

[@zayncharania9182]

Wow! Opening theory really has developed so much in just 8 years! Thank for the vid agad!

[@manavkaul]

Stockfish says hi

[@marover]

Thanks to chess engines right?

[@manavkaul]

@@marover yes

[@TheN0mersy]

I will definitely agree that it is in fact the best tool to practice, but you only remembering variations/moves against specific oponent sometimes, there is no furtherplay as you haven't checked or tested counter attacks with the engine(if the game continues not exactly what you planned). I love this game, being able to practice truly on your own and then implement different ideas based on your experience rather than best moves that are memorised gives you the best feeling in the game, when you destroy someone completely by implementing general knowledge during the game. Great feeling.

[@megalo-dono4339]

I should probably modify your comment by adding the word "engine" before "opening theory"

[@brendanward2991]

The argument in the article also explains, for example, why there is an apparent performance gap between, say, Indian men and Irish men. Here in Ireland, chess is just not very popular. To start with, there are only a few million people in the country. Very few of them play the game, fewer take it seriously, and most have no idea who Magnus Carlsen is or that they even play chess in Norway! India, on the other hand, has a huge population and is the original home of chess. You do the maths.

[@vejeke]

@@ryanflanagan9624 Hey man, it's not right to make fun of religious people like that. Even if you think their mythology is absurd and you laugh at it, there are people who really believe what you've said. Real people, with their virtues and defects, with their worldviews shaped by the society in which they live. *It could happen to you* if you were born into a family whose members were believers in that god. You might even have been born into a family of Scientologists or Muslims or followers of the monkey god Hanuman. So have more respect for those who have been victims of religious indoctrination and do not mock them by writing down their beliefs in that way.

[@VarunSingh-fx8pb]

@@vejeke Let him be...I couldn't even understand most of what he tried to say. Also, a correction, there's no specific followers of Hanuman. He's one of the gods out of many. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Hinduism has lots of gods and goddesses. Kind of like the Greek mythology, or the Egyptian, or Norse mythology. Also, I actually disagree with the article. The article starts by speculating that the basis for measurement of the gap shouldn't be the strongest players, and later on goes to present a trial of statistical data, (where he used the wrong audience, which was non juniors indian women, instead of all women) and produced misinterpreted results. The gap is evident. It's also expected. The sample taken was wrong. Why should it be participation, and not the actual pop size? When you do take actual pop size, you'll see the gap even if you use the sample group he used.

[@elarudumets5231]

@@ryanflanagan9624 jesus and god is not real kekw

[@resiliencevideos]

and shockingly enough the best male irish chess player is higher rated than the best indian female despite there being way more indian female chess players than there are irish males :^)

[@brendanward2991]

@@resiliencevideos I don't think that's true. Sam Collins has a FIDE rating of 2456, while Humpy Koneru is 2618 (and Dronavalli Harika is 2484).

[@mothecat776]

AGADMATOR. Welcome back Antonio. I love any Polgar game. Aside: the expression is "lurking 'AROUND' the corner" GOOD LUCK!!

[@magmiksch987]

and don´t forget her sisters, back in the days the Polgar family for sure was the strongest family team, ^^

[@VirtueSignal9000]

the Polgar/Kramnik commentary on the Norway tournament was great, Judit definitely knows her stuff.

[@RobertJohnson-nz3xm]

Of course she knows her stuff. 2700+ peak rating is a super GM.

[@VirtueSignal9000]

Robert Johnson absolutely, but even after not completing for years she’s still does fantastic commentary, I hope she does more of it in the future.

[@wabdih]

knows her stuff is an understatement. She was a top 8 player in the world

[@oriondx72]

@Craig Jones totally agree i enjoyed them on commentary.

[@StacyInLove1]

I absolutely love her analysis and commentary of the elite competitions. It would be wonderful to see her involved even more regularly. Primarily, she is a joy to watch in such a role. She is also such a role model for us everywhere as well!

[@ih8mcfly]

The last time I won a game of chess , was when my opponent had to leave because his mum had to pick him up

[@ninodrhr]

and it was in that position when opponent chose to resign

[@sherazade82]

You mean you've actually won a game of chess? T_T

[@Hy-jg8ow]

Thanks. The Judit saga would be cool one day.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

Someone proposed the same, up, maybe you can give him /her a like? I hope we get it.

[@LSpencer777]

Yes, that's a great #suggestion. Her attacking style is so straightforward and logical that I feel I could put her ideas to use in some of my games. In that sense, she is more of a practical inspiration than some of the players whose moves are exceedingly esoteric.

[@petewest3122]

I picked Judit in Agad's last "Saga" poll. Not disappointed that Morphy won, though.

[@leadnitrate2194]

Karpov saga ftw

[@josheike3543]

@@petewest3122 Same! I've been loving the Morphy saga. It sounds like Agadmator is planning to do Judit's in the future, as well as Karpov's. They're all going to be great, so I don't really care what order we get them in.

[@GIFT1FROM1THE1GODZ]

Good article :-) I'm glad they made a distinction between a performance gap and participation gap. Everyone should be encouraged to learn/play chess

[@pascalzwald6441]

white: Kb1 Agadmator: "It`s prophylactic"

[@theo9706]

well you never know what might be lurking behind the corner

[@joeyp1636]

Judit is one of my favourite players because of the way she plays not because of anything else. "Comparison is the death of joy" Theodore Roosevelt

[@ranomacc9473]

Me: I would play F3 in this position. Agadmator: "So carson played F3 and his position was completely lost." Me: ......

[@chessandmathguy]

Thief of joy*

[@kreek22]

"Comparison is the death of joy" That's just a corollary of the old "ignorance is bliss." Both are philosophy for babies.

[@nightflash5951]

People in hospital: What is going to happen to me?!?!? Agadmator in hospital: This is such a great article about chess :)

[@SAIKRISHNA-rm2lk]

Thanks @agadmator for this video. I have been waiting for the matches between Judit and Magnus. Please do more games between them

[@dutchyboy14]

The statistics Wei Ji Ma outlines in his article are absolute gold. When thinking about the proportion gap of women to men in chess, I get very upset about anyone thinking less about women's abilities. Statistically speaking, there is a woman who is just as capable at performing at the level that Magnus Carlsen does. Tragically, because so many less girls and women are brought up playing chess, she has not been discovered yet. I say that knowing full well just how much of a statistical anomaly Magnus Carlsen is.

[@ElReyGarcia11]

Wrong.The article is only examining India, where the difference appears to be as expected due to participation. However, India appears to be the anomaly. A critique was done of said article which analyzed the top 20 countries in the world and found that in 16-18 of the 20 countries men outperform women much more than what is expected just due to participation. Read: josecamachocollados.medium.com/the-gender-gap-in-top-level-chess-15591d8990ba

[@myele-manzanza]

#Suggestion - The Judit Polgar Saga

[@selimessai4919]

Up

[@CamiloGaetePuga]

I voted for her Saga last time. Her games are so fun to watch and she is SUCH A LEGEND!

[@TheDonClock]

yea

[@wswqq2330]

No

[@telvinamamub3454]

Upvote please

[@AJ-sb3eg]

The queen can roam the board in a move, the king can move only one square at a time, sure there's a gap.

[@Gregory_McIntosh]

Good one.

[@cinegraphics]

Proof that a queen cannot be raped unless she wants it. "I'm gonna pretend I've fallen and hurt my knee so he can catch me..."

[@josueventura1574]

@@cinegraphics 😐

[@trollmallow924]

@@cinegraphics what are you on about?

[@cinegraphics]

@@trollmallow924 the queen is fast. The king is slow. Hence, he can't catch her unless she wants it. NVM. It was a joke. Forget it.

[@peterday3253]

The article makes sense to me. Because women are underrepresented in chess, their chances of having top players equal with the men's top players is much less. I like the author's analysis. Good job, Wei Ji Ma. And thanks for the video and passing along the article, Agadmator. Great to expand the vast knowledge further. Especially concerning equality and sameness among gender.

[@staypositive4358]

Millions of women play chess. How many more women should play chess to get one in the top 10? A billion? A trillion?

[@badianoudis]

Fascinating videos u make!!! u improved so much in the way u entertain us, and help us improve our games....

[@za3tar301]

As a scientist myself, I really like the article. It makes a lot of sense. Comparing indeed has to be based on concrete statistical evidence. I congratulate Prof. Ma on an excellent assessment and thanks Antonio for bringing this up.

[@staypositive4358]

That's interesting. Tell me, as a scientist that you are, how big of a population do you need to get women in the top ten? A billion? A trillion? Millions and millions of women have been playing chess since the invention of the game. Yet over hundreds of years only Judith Polgar earns a spot in the top ten. How much bigger of a sample size do you need? And, as a scientist please tell me when statistical correlation began to replace empirical evidence? Based on sample and population size how many Norwegians should be in the top ten chess players list?

[@staypositive4358]

@Daniel Burke . Of course. People love repeating garbage they don't understand themselves.

[@stevesteve2198]

So glad to see you fully back on your feet. I know you monitor these comments, or rather I hope you do. Best wishes from Australia. Thanks agadmator

[@raulsuhett]

Great video and awesome article. Thank you very much for sharing it.

[@atharvasinghania4565]

Agad was uncomfortable saying that Magnus resigned 😂😂😂 as he could not believe it.

[@devanshusharma4391]

Same here😂😂 Whenever I see magnus in the title, my mind already assumes the winner😀😀

[@user-yz2xl1tu6t]

spoiler alert

[@GeHeum]

As someone who's studying mathematics I hear about the gender gap in mathematics (also a logic based thing) from time to time. Last time I heard about it from a fellow math student (girl) and she was going to a meeting discussing how to get more women in math, (she went to one or two of those meeting before). She mentioned: "there are less women and nobody knows exactly why." The theory she had about the gap was the following: The 2 main factors why there are less girls are social pressure (from other girls) and the difference in how girls and boys are raised. To expand: math (and chess) are seen as boy thing and girls get more social pressure (mainly coming from other girls, but not exclusively) to do girl accepted studies, (and maybe are more susceptible to social pressure). The ability to do cold hard logic/abstract thinking/calculating can be trained, and toys like Lego (or other things that help) are almost all boys toys, so the boys have a head start. And since almost everybody does what they are good in this very early headstart makes a lot of difference.

[@coconut6743]

Your friend forgot one theory. Maybe women on average are just not as interested in mathematics as men

[@michae976]

That sounds exactly like how a university student would approach that.... But maybe men aren't women and women aren't men, and they shouldn't be treated the same and have all the same interests and needs, and that's okay? Women don't like math because they don't need to, it's just biology. There are outliers of course, but 99.9% of women aren't built for that stuff.

[@GeHeum]

@@coconut6743 I absolutely agree with that, men are just more interested in math, and that leads to better results. It just isn't clear if the lesser interest is inherent to women, caused by the theorized factors, or a combination of both. Edit: typo

[@GeHeum]

@@michae976 That could be, the 99.9% figure is definitely way to high (I would say 70%). It just is unclear if the difference is really biological. I personally think it is, then because the way we raise boys and girls has evolved such that boys are trained in stuff boys are on average better in, and the same for girls. This is a good thing, but it also exemplifies differences between boys and girls that biological may be a good bit smaller.

[@bartekAPOKALIPSA]

One thing you ppl don't notice is the evolution and it's effect on our brains. For the last tens of thousands of years, men had different tasks than women. A man would simply start one task, finish it and start another. Hunting or growing some crops is an example of that. In the meantime, for the same period of time, women had to simultaneously take care of kids, prepare food, keep the fire burning, check if it's safe around the house, all of that in the same time.

[@SatyamTyagiMV]

Excellent Article! Can't argue with Math! Professor Ma has simplified it such that it is extremely easy to follow! Simply put he proves very logically "under-representation automatically leads to underachievement" if we go by the highest achievement

[@johnj1646]

What about female underrepresentaion in weight lifting? Using similar data sets we could conclude that the reason women dont lift as much weight is because of sexism or whatever

[@goyonman9655]

You can argue math

[@pranshuchoubey8916]

Magnus Carlsen looks like a 14 year old in 2014 😂

[@LS-gy2py]

the things a beard does to you..

[@Nirgranth]

2012 right? or was the pic taken in 2014?

[@Bwijaya2301]

Nerd

[@pranshuchoubey8916]

@@Nirgranth I guess 2012

[@LeventK]

Oh yeah, and his voice was shrill as well like me.

[@choknater]

wtf..... that attack from judit was insane. one of the best 'pause the video' moves i've seen on this channel wow

[@JumpingTomato]

Even though Judit is past her prime, I love her attacking style!

[@matthewwysocki5019]

So glad your surgery went well. I really appreciate your channel. Blessings!

[@dudiobugtron]

That is cool to see that research, thanks for linking!

[@likitadevi]

Atlast someone who really tried to understand the reason behind gender gap rather than just jumping into the conclusion of superiority because of biology. Hats off to Wei Ji Ma. 👏

[@jonl7855]

I didn’t know you we’re having medical problems. Glad to hear that you’re recovered and doing well.

[@pimacanyon6208]

great article. thanks for posting it!

[@hitchikerspie]

Thanks for the link to the article!

[@gabrielerigo2809]

Another factor to take into account is the difference in stamina between men and women, and we know how important that can be in chess as well as in many other sports.

[@staypositive4358]

I would absolutely love to see a saga on Judith Polgar. Its easy to admire the #1 rated player in the world but as you stated Polgar is an anomaly herself and should be respected just as much as the top player in the world. Her achievements in chess are no less impressive.

[@nancyswindler7414]

Rather, they're more.

[@telvinamamub3454]

Upvote!!

[@oldmangloomify]

#suggestion Judit Polgar saga!!

[@tychoMX]

Polgar sisters saga!!! I've seen quite a few impressive games, even if Zsuzza and Zsofia didn't get to the ability that Judit displayed.

[@SerLaama]

Nah. She deserves the recognition for being a strong player, but she doesn't get to have herself elevated to unearned heights because she isn't a man.

[@djinnmagik]

GREAT TO SEE YOU BACK AT WORK ANTONIO ❤

[@amitbarotmathszone8489]

You are simply best dedicated.... even in hospital you were preparing a game to show.... Sir lot to learn from you...

[@aotmn8399]

"Let’s say I have two groups, A and B. Group A has 10 people, group B has 2. Each of the 12 people gets randomly assigned a number between 1 and 100 (with replacement). Then I use the highest number in Group A as the score for Group A and the highest number in Group B as the score for Group B. On average, Group A will score 91.4 and Group B 67.2. The only difference between Groups A and B is the number of people. The larger group has more shots at a high score, so will on average get a higher score. The fair way to compare these unequally sized groups is by comparing their means (averages), not their top values. Of course, in this example, that would be 50 for both groups - no difference!" ----- excerpted from the linked article by Wei Ji Ma

[@VarunSingh-fx8pb]

When we talk about a gender gap in chess, it's not actually about how many people play it, or what their rating is. How I understand it is, there's just not enough strong women players. The higest rated players are all men. And the sample group isn't actually 10 v 2. It's more of 5.1 to 4.9. The sample gets further reduced to 10-2 due to how many women actually take interest in chess. That's not anybody's fault. It's just how it is. There's more opportunities for women, if anything.

[@homero3928]

Sadly women suffer the most because of harassment, not being able to go "by themselves" to play a tournament in another city if she's a teen(what does not(!!) happen to men), there's always a "aw you can't lose to a girl" type of guy; here there's a guy who never plays against women nor kids because he's clearly afraid of losing to them. There are many factors to be seen. This A and B group is a very interesting example of how it works for rating. But all the other details count too. I have no idea where you took that "4.9 and 5.1" from but you can look at any tournament around, there are way more men playing.

[@langa77777]

@@homero3928 what do you suggest as a solution?

[@joshs7160]

@@VarunSingh-fx8pb Except, it fundamentally does come down to how many people (women) play it, as well as the sociological and cultural factors that come into play. Bottom line, the differences in the top male players, and the top female players can be explained by statistical analysis, given that total male players far outweigh female ones. I also have no idea why you're taking male/female pop. into account, that's not relevant whatsoever, only the percentage of players participating is. The fact that you think women would have more opportunities to succeed in chess than men really shows your limited understanding of gender roles/dynamics.

[@jo-flowbmoonsmell8564]

@@VarunSingh-fx8pb you should read the entire article

[@manugonzalez4921]

I would love a podcast episode with Judith

[@JawsXXIV]

Thanks for the link to the article. It truly is very interesting to say the least. I loved how the author explained statistical concepts for people who have absolutely no idea of statistics. I think the same points the author makes could also apply to esports, dunno if anyone here is into that ;)

[@Erkynar]

Thank you for the article link!

[@dr.mokhtarfal5407]

17:46 "Magnus is the best chess player who ever lived" Finally, Agadmator revealed his opinion on the GOAT's discussion. 🌹🐐😍

[@nombreapellido519]

it's not a matter of opinion really, it's the objective truth, i'm not a fan of his style of play but he's been literally number 1 for years and the highest rated ever

[@gamenova7860]

@@nombreapellido519 meh, different people have different standards for who is GOAT

[@staypositive4358]

In term of total skill yes but in terms of dominance Fischer and Morphy are unmatched. Every generation has more knowledge than the last.

[@tracker7661]

Kasparov had an interesting discussion with Lex Fridman (look it up) where he basically said that "Carlsen is a lethal combination of Karpov and Fischer". Carlsen IS the goat, but it's also thanks to his predecessors that he's able to reach such level of play.

[@robertsmith8734]

@@nombreapellido519 Obviously, he is not.

[@ntataryn]

Judit is a legend. Still running circles around other commentators for big matches.

[@thernly]

Except when she’s paired up with a co-commentator like Anish Giri as in the recent FIDE WC match between Carlsen and Nepo, where she was clearly unable to comprehend and explain ca. 2800 level chess thinking. Let’s honor her for what she actually achieved in chess history as a woman but let’s not exaggerate her actual level of chess talent.

[@bloxxerhunt1566]

@@thernly wym she peaked at top 8 in the world. it's just about how much chess has changed since she used to play seriously and nowadays, where people can run games through supercomputers and memorize lines that go 20, 30 moves into the game. the entire pro chess community just got way better because of computers, and she doesn't play anymore so she didn't make an effort to catch up with how things are done nowadays.

[@thernly]

@@bloxxerhunt1566 Don’t be an idiot. This has nothing to do with technology advancing opening theory. It has to do with ability to see tactics. Judit is just an average GM now, mid-2500 strength, not unlike Yasser Seirawan. They were great and they are still good, but they can’t play or commentate at a 2800 level.

[@bloxxerhunt1566]

@@thernly Yes. Never said she's the best in the world or even close to it. It's just that computers made chess evolve at absurdly higher rates than before, and she didn't try to keep up because by that point she barely played.

[@thernly]

@@bloxxerhunt1566 Just stop.

[@StacyInLove1]

Thank you for linking professor Wei Ji Ma's article. The statstical analysis is excellent.

[@JohnSmith-oe5kx]

The statistical analysis is misleading. In India, 12% of FIDE-rated players (1000+) are women. 13% of players rated 2000+ (reasonably strong) are women. By 2300+ that falls to just over 7% (166 men vs 13 women). 2400+ is 94 men and 4 women (4%). 2500+ is 42 men and 2 women. 2600+ is 17 men and 0 women. However, India is not exactly known for nurturing its female population. Compare Georgia, which has a proud tradition of female chess players (Gaprindashvili and Chiburdnadze are two of the top five female players of all time). 26% of allFIDE-rated players (1000+) are women. That proportion holds all the way up to around 2200 (25% of 2500+ players are women). By 2400+ that falls slightly to 20%. Georgia has 12 players rated 2500+, the only woman is rated 2506 (11th). Probably the best example is China, which specifically set out to (and succeed at) creating world champions of female chess. 30% of all FIDE-rated players are women. That proportion holds to about 2000+ (29% are women), which falls to 24% for 2200+, 20% for 2300+, 13% for 2400+, 12% for 2500+ (30 men and 4 women), and one woman ranked over 2600 (the only one in the world) compared to 12 men, 3 of whom are rated over 2700 and one of whom is the current world champion (and 2nd-rated player).

[@2Hot2]

Great commentary, as always, and sorry to hear about your heart condition, that sucks.

[@tomatensalat7420]

That's a great article! I think this argument applies to so many other areas and also so many other groups. I always had the feeling the amount of people in a group has to have an impact on how good the best are, but I'm not a mathematician so it's great to see some reasoning and proof behind it.

[@kreek22]

Flawed reasoning, no proof. He cherry picked a country that's unlike other countries and ignored other effects like self selection according to achievement.

[@hodeshet5987]

regarding the article, he can talk all day long about statistics and about "Indian women play as well as men on average", the fact is, that no one is interested in average chess, and in high level chess no woman except judit was able to compete vs man. when things are very simple there is no need to draw graphs and calculate statistics.

[@greenrico10]

if there are less women participating in chess in the first place then there would be less women in the highest level as well

[@hodeshet5987]

@@greenrico10 correct, but according to writer's mind set every now and than a woman who has the potential compete with man should pop up, but in reality one woman did that and it seems to stay that way for a long time.

[@hodeshet5987]

@Jake G if that is the case that less women play therefore there is less women the gap between the genders should't be that big, and Should be to more women like judit.

[@carstenhvenegaardkjeldgaar241]

Great article - thanks!

[@danielknull6086]

You’re level of explanation is superb!

[@k1ngcarrot]

It feels like a bunch of the people commenting didn’t read the article

[@DaevorTheDevoted]

Actually, it seems like a bunch of people got fooled by the cherry picking in the article.

[@Maxfr8]

It is a stupid article.

[@Camberwell86]

Seems so weird a 2012 game so recent but Agad keeps saying "these days the most popular is blah blah blah but back in those days" lmao 😅 #suggestion Toni you should do Zukertort's immortal vs Blackburne in 1883 🙂

[@leadnitrate2194]

The effect of engines rapidly becoming more powerful. I don't think I've seen any Zukertort game on this channel, now that you mention it.

[@groussac]

Right. That was my initial reaction, "those days" as though 2012 was as distant in time as the 19th century. I guess the impact of the engines really has had that big an impact on tactics, making everything before them obsolete. Something along the lines of the horse and the automobile.

[@staypositive4358]

Its only funny to ignorants who don't understand the impact that chess engines and now AI have had on chess over the past decade. But please by all means continue to make a fool of yourself.

[@Camberwell86]

@@staypositive4358 Obvious troll is obvious 😅 such negativity for an account called "stay positive" 🤣

[@staypositive4358]

@@Camberwell86 . You must enjoy posting idiotic comments then laughing at yourself. Everyone is laughing at you son.

[@jeffreyalperin1470]

Thanks for sharing the article, I really enjoyed it.

[@nyawawarik7624]

#suggestion Any video about judit polgar or hou yi fan since theres so few about them in the channel yet im sure theres a lot of their fans here Yifan's win against fabi in grenke 2017 or her draw against magnus would make a good one

[@kevnation5556]

Keep in mind this is Carlsen's only loss ever against Judit Polgar in any time format. He is 11-1 with 5 draws

[@justabeardedguythatisahero9848]

Judit in her prime is a bobby fischer, she would have crushed magnus But we grow dude

[@sampro454]

@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 lol what

[@leadnitrate2194]

@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 Judit in her prime was rated 2735. Formidable, to be sure, and ratings do inflate, but a difference of 150 points in peak performance counts for something.

[@staypositive4358]

@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 . No

[@VMA01]

@@justabeardedguythatisahero9848 your username conveys your credibility. thanks for the conformation. FYI Magnus is a monster.

[@vijay_chavda]

i see a guitar in the background.. would love to see you play it for once! :)

[@lolpepper707]

Thanks for linking to Wei Ji's article -- very instructive.

[@jonb3150]

No it wasn't. Total non sense that article.

[@markpatterson8922]

@@jonb3150 “no it wasn’t” is not exactly a logical rebuttal.

[@jonb3150]

@@markpatterson8922 Do I honestly need to explain why the article makes no sense? Just take a look at some of the comments here, im sure there are plenty of them explaining it. Extremely stupid article.

[@markpatterson8922]

@@jonb3150 No comment I have read here shows a knowledge of statistics that approaches the article's author. As Neil dG. T. said, the most dangerous thing is for one to have enough knowledge to think they are right, but not enough to know that they are wrong.

[@jonb3150]

@@markpatterson8922 Knowledge is one thing, logic is another and understanding yet another. The guy has knowledge of the statistics but the way he applies logic to reach an understanding is so monumentally stupid that I laughed out loud reading the article. Let's say some math genius made this stupid comment: "On average white men are actually better than black men in basketball. It's just that there are more black men in the NBA so they have bigger pool of talent to draw from and therefore most superstars in NBA are black. If there were as many white guys in the NBA then white Michael Jordan and white Kobe Bryant would be all over the place" Not that there are more black men in NBA because they are better than white guys, it's just a strange coincidence that there are more black men in the NBA and therefore it only appears that they are better than white guys. That is what he is saying with the article and you are going like: "oh yeah he nailed it", lmao In Russia or Iceland(where I come from), no chess talent goes under the radar. In Iceland we teach chess at school, chess grandmasters are on payroll from the government as "artists". Not a single Russian or Icelandic top talent will go under the radar, man or female. Yet Iceland has like 12 men grandmaster on their team roaster but no woman has come even close to a GM title, not even international title. Our current Icelandic female champion is an immigrant from Eastern Europe (I think Poland) the last time I checked, with like sub fide master ratings of 2100 elo. I know a two time consecutive icelandic female chess champion. In a pub blitz match I won her like 6-2. I have never competed in a tournament and have no elo rating. She has around 1800 elo rating and she was 2 time Icelandic female chess champion There is so much bullshit in the article that I can't be bothered correcting all of it, the cherry picking of data etc etc. Having knowledge of statistics or even being a genius can still mean you make monumentally stupid conclusions

[@yoshireincarnate1649]

excellent article. i suppose the obvious follow up question would be 'why is participation in chess so skewed when it comes to sex?' i'd expect it could be a number of things from being encouraged/discouraged by parents based on your sex. ie. a girl 'should' be playing with barbie dolls at age 9 not chess. but this is speculation of course. i would be interested in seeing the gender participation as a percentage over time. which direction is it moving in, if it's even moving at all. and maybe you could predict that by, say, 2040 that the percentage might be 15% for example. the piece is a nice introduction to the topic with some actual sound data analysis.

[@CeilingPanda]

There actually is an issue with comparing avarages as well, if you want to measure potential vs avarage that's another story. It all matters what you would want to measure. There is also an issue of comparing genders from avarages from an underrepresented group. You could argue that the avarage female player who actively play are more intrested and invested in chess compared to a male, but that's also hard to measure. EDIT: Having gotten several nasty PM's, no I'm not saying men are better than women, but just saying the article doesn't supply the full image.

[@42mateos]

And though the actual distributions were eventually compared and shown to be very similar, there was no explicit mention of variance (or higher moments) for some reason. Two distributions could easily have the same average, but different variance, leading to a huge difference in the tails.

[@Ran0r]

@@42mateos Yeah that was also my immediate thought when I read the article. It is well established that men have a wider spread concerning IQ than women, therefore one would expect to have more exceptionally gifted male players. Of course, when taking the average over thousands of players these few outliers won't affect the outcome. So the approach to just compare the averages does miss out on some key features when comparing individiual strength between these two groups.

[@Luke-og6jh]

@UCN0Gjm7wPnad5jQaZr0LVvQ He is talking about "greater male variability hypothesis". But to claim that this theory is "well established" is pushing it. Since newer studies have shown that male variance compared to female is decreasing. And it is not true in the entire world. Some studies have shown the opposite in different countries.

[@FredPlanatia]

@@42mateos The distributions where compared. They overlay. There isn't any evidence of a difference there. The onus is on those who want to say the two groups differ.

[@johnaustin704]

Nice discussion and valid points made about only looking at averages, but I think the graphical representation of the distributions of the ratings of the 2 populations makes it clear that the shape of the curves are roughly the same, meaning that any differences between the groups is more likely derived from chance than a real difference between the actual difference ability between the 2 genders.

[@royalkelin]

Loved the article, thx for that !

[@narothamkanjee4771]

Hi wishing you the best of health enjoy every one of your presentations

[@lavabeard5939]

wow I finally found the right move when he paused and said figure it out. I'm totally ignorant of chess but I can tell I am learning a bit from these vids.

[@_Anna_Nass_]

I want an introduction to the dog that’s always in the background of your videos.

[@MSTwoK]

Does anyone know why Hungary is abbreviated as “THEIR” in the rankings at 18:30?

[@L1ama]

If you google the title of the page and go to the FIDE site it's HUN now, so no idea. Maybe his browser tried to auto-translate or something, a few of the other countries are messed up too

[@svhuwagv2965]

Nice article and nice arguments below it. I think the author was partly right and the comment section too. You have to analyze this further. The participation gap seems logical. However, I would like to see it on the whole dataset. Also as some pointed out, you should never jump to conclusions, especially as a professor. Facts should be the only thing to be concluded, not suspicions.

[@joshs7160]

This article shows that the data from India is more of an anomaly, participation alone accounting for the gap is simply illogical when social factors play a significant role as well.

[@stevenwink4993]

Nice article, thanks for linking! I agree with the stats method used, and I do stats as a profession. Strong argument that the gender gap in chess is due to the participation gap.

[@joshs7160]

Unfortunately, that data is only somehow relevant for India (and Hungary) in the rest of the major chess playing countries, participation only accounts for roughly half of the Elo gap at high levels. Of course, this should be an obvious conclusion, because none of this data accounts for the reason the participation gap exists in the first place, and all the factors that impede women's ability to succeed in a male dominated arena.

[@kreek22]

I don't do stats as a profession, I do thinking as a way of life. The stats method used falls short of making the case for multiple reasons. The participation gap does not begin to explain the *sex* gap (gender is a grammatical term). The author chose a country that happens to give a result he likes--but it's unrepresentative. For example, he says the stats indicate that one female in the top 20 is expected. Well, only one female has ever made the top 30 of world rankings. How low does female global participation have to be to explain this extreme absence? Answer: lower than it is. He fails to note that chess players self select and self selection is correlated with achievement. If two groups with equal ability have highly divergent participation rates, yet very similar achievement distributions, this strongly implies that the group with the higher participation rate has higher ability--males in this case. Compare only the top 1,000 male and female Indian players and the males end up with a much higher average.

[@carbyte2673]

Hey agad, you are looking more thinner these days Hope you are in good health 🤗❤️🔥

[@ass-master-deluxe]

he goes to the gym💪😎

[@Andrewkosche]

Thinner doesn’t mean healthier

[@carbyte2673]

@@Andrewkosche I know that's why I said that I hope he is in good health

[@dnsmithnc]

@@Andrewkosche Thanks for the newsflash.

[@Andrewkosche]

@@carbyte2673 well a lot of people don’t know that and that mentality can catalyze many eating disorders

[@FearTheImpaler]

that article was awesome, thank you for sharing!. i have been curious for a long time, and have only ever heard anecdotes and opinions on both sides of the argument. i consider this issue completely solved, or at the very least no longer something that weighs on my mind

[@CuntryMatters]

Give this one a read. Same methodology, different results across other countries. Concludes that "drawing bold conclusions from simple data-driven experiments in a complex social issue" is very suspicious. josecamachocollados.medium.com/the-gender-gap-in-top-level-chess-15591d8990ba

[@Matt-by3yd]

Just because the ratio is in the same in all the lower rankings, does not mean that correlation would apply linearly at the extreme top.

[@FearTheImpaler]

@@CuntryMatters interesting. im not sure if im convinced by that article, he mentions he " introduced a different “top strength” measure that may be less affected by outliers." and he also has no error bars, unlike ma's original article. without error bars, his p

[@rlidwka]

​@@FearTheImpaler He added a different top strength metric on top of existing one (which was also tested in the same article). In plain English: Wei Ji Ma - 1 metric, 1 country; Collados - 2 metrics, 20 countries.

[@esotericman22]

Definitely a Polgar saga needed!

[@anthonyvecere4260]

5:55 After 17. h5 g5, is it possible for black to play Bxg5 and win a pawn? Unless I'm missing something, if black recaptured with Nxg5 then couldn't white play 19. Nc7 and fork the Queen and Rook?

[@theartisticactuary]

As an actuary, I do a lot of work with stats. The article makes sense. The two graphs do a good job in showing why comparing numbers of top male and female players means nothing. The second graph definitely tells a story. If he wanted to take it a step further, he could do some statistical tests to see whether the male and female grades could come from the same underlying distribution but, to be honest, he's already transmitted 90% of the message with 10% of the work, so that's probably a good place to stop.

[@josepasensiofuertes5366]

It does make sense but the data was cherrypicked, results would be very different in other countries. As I posted elsewhere: I looked at newratings.fide.com Used advanced search and excluded inactive players. I used the ratings filter to know the amount of players by gender who had the following ratings or above: 2700: 0/36 (0%) 2650: 1/99 (1,01%) 2600: 1/234 (0,43%) 2550: 4/423 (0,95%) 2500: 12/729 (1,65%) 2450: 27/1216 (2,22%) 2400: 58/1967 (2,95%) 2350: 102/2994 (3,41%) 2300: 170/4334 (3,92%) 2250: 269/6063 (4,44%) 2200: 390/8421 (4,63%) 2150: 525/11433 (4,59%) 2100: 683/15137 (4,51%) 2050: 907/19562 (4,64%) 2000: 1175/24602 (4,78%) Given you do work with statistics I guess you will agree that participation gap can not explain this difference in participation rates.

[@theartisticactuary]

@@josepasensiofuertes5366 If the question is whether the small number of strong female players proves that there's a gender gap, I'm happy the original article with the graphs does enough to shoot this down. If the question is whether there is a gender gap then (i) yes we need to do statistical tests, and (ii) yes we need to think hard about whether we're using the right data. For the data you provided in your comment, I did a "chi squared goodness of fit test at 5% significance level" and the test failed, suggesting the male and female distributions are not identical. I didn't look into why not, what the differences were, etc.

[@josepasensiofuertes5366]

@@theartisticactuary Yeah... Not really. Even the article showed women outperformed men 32 elo points difference in average. If you check the s.d in male population you get 345. Now tell me what is the sample mean s.d for a sample size of 1145 individuals. 32 elo difference might look small but three standard deviations are really significant. I guess you can accept there is a gap there because it is women who do better in average. Well it turns out men do better in the top level after accounting for participation gap, did the same proceeding as mentioned in the previous paragraph only for India though: 2700: 0/3 (0%) 2600: 0/15 (0%) 2500: 2/38 (5,26%) 2400: 2/93 (2,15%) 2300: 13/177 (7,34%) 2200: 28/272(10,29%) 2100: 45/393 (11,45%) 2000: 65/543 (11,86%) The author very conveniently simply said it was 1/20 (1st woman in 17th place) but did hid the real distribution on top level by graphing it with average distribution so that it all looked 0 anyways. Even though India has the world 2nd highest woman and 'only' the 16th highest rated man. So, it is quite clear to be men's and women's distribution are different, even if they are roughly the same, which they are. Why? Who knows, but they are different for certain.

[@theartisticactuary]

@@josepasensiofuertes5366 Feel free to press ahead with your statistical analysis. I've got a load of other problems to deal with at the moment so I'll leave you to it.

[@vejeke]

@@josepasensiofuertes5366 Crees que la hipótesis de la gran variabilidad masculina podría explicar esos resultados?

[@sarangb2272]

You get to hear 'And in this position, Magnus resigned the game' like once every 2 years.

[@maciejhelminiak6300]

@Aston Martin Duda

[@OneWhoWalksAlone]

excellent article and wonderful game

[@edodekovic111]

Super kanal, stvarno svaka cast. Nego, zanima me što svaki put kažeš; "Sorry about that?" O cemu se radi, nikako da shvatim.

[@gauravjha8938]

I remember Magnus in those days. He was like Morphy reincarnated in our era. He used to level the playing field many times over against some extraordinary GMs...🤷🏻‍♂️

[@johnadams2063]

Judit was really an amazing chess player. I watch her games and I'm always blown away

[@SpiceWeazel]

She was still steadily climbing the ratings in 2005 but then she had a kid in 2006 and took a step back from chess. She was one of the greatest attacking players of her era. I often wonder if she could have been a serious contender for world champion if she hadn't decided to focus on raising a family.

[@blondymonk1535]

@@SpiceWeazel haha. She wouldn't stand a chance at the WC xd

[@SpiceWeazel]

@Blondymonk Why not? Her rating was still climbing, who knows what she could have accomplished? I'm not saying she was a shoe-in, but she was throwing hands with the best.

[@queenu606]

​@@SpiceWeazeljudit would have won easily but I suppect the cheating in chess world maybe made her give up entirely

[@Man-oo6fr]

nice article, thanks agad

[@gsdgsdgdhsadds]

Wow, the article by Prof. Wei Ji Ma is the best explanation for the gender gap I've ever read. It's merely a participation gap. I'd wager that this statistical analysis would apply to other competitive games like Texas holdem poker.

[@Gusishh]

Wait, you read that article in 3 minutes? You read very fast! It took me about 13.

[@timespaice]

Polgar was verry strong, I don’t care if it s a woman for me she s one of strongest chess player who ever lived. But sadly just like Boby Fisher she broke down and retired. Chess world is rude, sadly she had never shown her full potential. Her true strength was beyond repair.

[@carsonhales2449]

She really wasn’t one of the strongest though sadly.

[@CyberPhiliosopher]

@@carsonhales2449 being in the top 10 in the world IS one of the strongest in my opinion.

[@MrAlanfalk73]

How many women world champions was that again ???

[@trainerred6582]

@mastersleib c'mon man, do you really believe the top 100 women are less interested in "things" (or the top100 women at any sport)? It can take decades of studying chess and playing to even reach #100 in the women's leaderboard. They certainly care about chess as much as men. They just can't reach the same level and there's nothing wrong about that. Anyone who doesn't take "things" seriously won't spend a significant part of their lifetime getting better at it

[@jackjon7763]

@@CyberPhiliosopher if she was top 10 in the world and Magnus still beat her 11-1-5 then my God was Magnus way overpowered.

[@WilliamJonesChess]

10:06 very cool x-ray 11:30 After exd5, black can play e4!! then Rxa2

[@CarlDidur]

The article insists that comparisons on the top players in unevenly distributed groups is useless and that you must compare averages. This video, however, compares top players, so it is an interesting pairing of ideas! I hope the new Netflix show inspires more women to play Chess (I haven't watched yet, btw).

[@CarlDidur]

Thanks for the link Agagmator!! A love a bit of math in the hands of an expert. A bit worried about what the comments section will reveal though...

[@numcrun]

This "expert" cherrypicked the Indian data. In the chessbase comments someone used all the data and it showed the real story.

[@josepasensiofuertes5366]

@@numcrun Exactly, just a fast search in fide tells a different story: I looked at newratings.fide.com Used advanced search and excluded inactive players. I used the ratings filter to know the amount of players by gender who had the following ratings or above: 2700: 0/36 (0%) 2650: 1/99 (1,01%) 2600: 1/234 (0,43%) 2550: 4/423 (0,95%) 2500: 12/729 (1,65%) 2450: 27/1216 (2,22%) 2400: 58/1967 (2,95%) 2350: 102/2994 (3,41%) 2300: 170/4334 (3,92%) 2250: 269/6063 (4,44%) 2200: 390/8421 (4,63%) 2150: 525/11433 (4,59%) 2100: 683/15137 (4,51%) 2050: 907/19562 (4,64%) 2000: 1175/24602 (4,78%)

[@uPenguin]

5:40 knight is also moved to protect c7 square from the white knight forking queen and rook, or am I missing something?

[@massivebird348]

Yeah im pretty sure that was the intended move for c7

[@tolkienfan1972]

Good article. I've made a similar argument myself, although less fleshed out.

[@tolkienfan1972]

I can imagine why

[@mrmowjorisin]

Great article

[@jonjosenna5581]

The real Harmon, from Queen’s gambit series, love Judith’s games.

[@m0skit0]

Judit*

[@jonjosenna5581]

@@m0skit0 Apologies

[@Dark_Voice]

Personally, for women to rise, the female only chess tortunaments need to be ended. The Women's chess tortunaments are like playing a computer game on medium difficulty and passing through alright while having major weaknesses. Men play on the highest difficulty where every mistake is heavily punished, they turn into little robots and are great under the constant pressure. Then those two meet and woman gets completely slaughtered because she was used to the medium difficulty BUT now was forced to play on hardest difficulty - for her it was something different, she was not used to WHILE for the man it was every day experience. In other words, in order for women to rise, they need to be integrated with men in the same tortunaments. In the beginning they will get owned but over time they will get used to it and rise. There is of course the method of shaming men and giving excuses how patriarchal the chess world once was which leads to nowhere.

[@pepebeezon772]

Yes, but more interestingly, why are women tournaments on a lower skill level

[@reaganabroad4952]

I think this is a silly idea. Women can already enter plenty of open tournaments. If they want to enter female only tournaments, that's fine.

[@MrOod67]

@@reaganabroad4952 Agreed, otherwise they wouldn't win any tournaments, and thus not get any tournament winnings, leading to even less women deciding to play chess competitively, leading to a vicious cycle and thus you would never get any equality in chess.

[@peceed]

@@MrOod67 We don't need any equality. Man and woman are different, it implies a lot of inequalities. There is a lot of things women are better at, and no man have problem with that.

[@rlidwka]

​@@MrOod67 How exactly do you call the existence of tournaments limited by gender an "equality"? Looks to me like a step in a completely opposite direction. Even if world championships are too tough, anyone can still win tournaments at a local level (which I'll be happy to see more of).

[@neamashenavar1828]

Wow great play!

[@mohamadhosseinqazitabataba8010]

Yes I agree the The Article its absolutely true ....

[@williamplumbridge4113]

“Magnus Carlsen is like Neo”. I like that XD.

[@oliverangermuller9827]

Judith left a big gap. But she is still a monster of a player. It was fun to watch her comment the tournament in Norway along Kramnik. More than once she destroyed him in the analysis.

[@versilov93]

#suggestion Sam Shankland vs Wesley So US Championship 27-Oct-2020. You 're gonna show it anyway but whatever :)

[@Suho1004]

Great article, and very sound statistically. You don't really need to be an expert in statistics to see that his argument makes sense.