Sport of Kings (and Queens)

Wall St. Journal ^ | 3/1/05 | BARBARA D. PHILLIPS

[RonF]

Q: Why can't Episcopalians play chess?

A: They can't tell the Bishops from the Queen.

[Alberta's Child]

Bobby Fischer was the primary reason why people in the U.S. started to get more interested in chess back in the 1970s.

Unfortunately, I think he was also the primary reason why people in the U.S. had lost interest in chess by the 1980s.

[Barney Gumble]

I would have to agree. There's nothing like a champion to spark interest. Similarly, when Nigel Short played Kasparov in the World Championship match, in the early 90s, England also had a flood of interest.

[Alberta's Child]

There's nothing like a champion to spark interest.

And there's nothing like the realization that this champion is a loony-tune to make all that interest vanish.

[Capriole]

Many studies have shown that in general, women's brains do not handle spatial relationships as well as men's brains do. Part of playing chess well demands that one mentally manipulate spatial relationships and visualize these relationships changing. Personally, I find this very difficult--my brain just doesn't do that well. But that's not to say that this ability can't be developed in women, and I believe that teaching my young daughter to play chess helped her to develop this ability to a greater degree than most girls have.

[1john2 3and4]

from the article;
And in a 2002 column for ChessCafe.com, she took on what might now be called the Lawrence Summers question. "If we talk about pure abilities and skills, I believe there should be no reason why women cannot play as well as men," Ms. Polgar wrote, but she went on to list various reasons that more female players have not reached chess's highest ranks--among them their biological clocks, narrower opportunities to compete, cultural and gender bias, and the fact that "for years, women have set much lower standards" for themselves in chess than men. "If you do not put in the same work, you can't compete at the same level," she said then.

I would like to ask Ms. Polgar why the Soviet Union did not produce a crop of top-tier (consistent top 50, say) female chess-players.

You see, the Sovs were very interested in world domination for quite some time, and assiduously trained girls, as only communists in control of a society can do, to win.

Communists' lust for power trumps narrower opportunities to compete, cultural and gender bias, and still didn't produce!

Seems we got the "Lawrence Summers question" answered, at least mostly, hmmmm?

[rcocean]

Excellent point! I've never heard it before.

Communism was dedicated to gender equality, in the same way the NAZI's were devoted to racism. In fact, most of the early feminists (post-1945) like Friedan, were communists or came from families with Commie connections.

Yet, as you point out, the Commies were never able to develop women chess players, engineers, scientists, pilots, athletes, equal to their male counterparts.

Someone could write a good book on this whole subject.

[theFIRMbss]

>Why so few women chess masters?

"Eight year-old orphan Beth Harmon is quiet, sullen, and by all appearances unremarkable. That is until she plays her first game of chess. Her senses grow sharper, her thinking clearer, and for the first time in her life she feels herself fully in control. By the age of sixteen, she’s competing for the U.S. Open championship. But as she hones her skills on the professional circuit, the stakes get higher, her isolation grows more frightening, and the thought of escape becomes all the more tempting. Engaging and fast-paced, The Queen’s Gambit speeds to a conclusion as elegant and satisfying as a mate in four."

[1john2 3and4]

....and they'd have to use Ann Coulter's publisher for it to even have a hope of seeing the light of day! :)

[Capriole]

Sometimes very brilliant people do not realize how unusual they are; they tend to ascribe their success to hard work and don't realize that in their fields, the hard work must be allied to extraordinary talent. And I find quite often that women who have some unusual ability, particularly in the so-called "hard science" areas or mathematics, do not understand that the rest of us women can't, just can't, make our brains do what theirs do. Ms Polgar sounds like one of these women. She ascribes the lack of women in chess to a variety of influences including discrimination instead of just admitting that most women can't do this stuff at the highest levels.

It does sound as though she has encountered real prejudice. And it must be said that years ago in certain areas of intellectual pursuit, some men really were awful to women who tried to enter the field.

[kinsman redeemer]

I live in a bubble, but from here I am seeing a resurgence of the game. Tournaments and clubs are popular in this area.

[Barney Gumble]

I have to disagree there. I think the Russian and slavic culture dictates that men played chess and women did other things.

I think girls have the ability to play competively but it is the social aspects of society that hold them back. Girls must learn at a young age and give it the same practice. Social considerations prevent girls from practicing enough and they end up giving up too quickly when they fail.

Perhaps out of 100 boys and 100 girls trained as youngsters, more boys would be better than girls, but that's not to say that the girls would not be competive.

[1john2 3and4]

Capriole, yes, it is a lousy deal she got from the men. That is wrong.

Mr. Barney, I believe the commies' social engineering trumped slavic culture. Girls were put through rigorous conditioning. Isolated in training groups per perceived proclivitiy at a very young age. Their whole lives were forcefully devoted to state ends. No advantage was spared these special groups. They were given the best of nutrition, coaching, and many other perks. They had their own force-fed culture.

Still didn't produce.

[Publius6961]

Ms. Polgar wrote, but she went on to list various reasons that more female players have not reached chess's highest ranks--among them their biological clocks, narrower opportunities to compete, cultural and gender bias, and the fact that "for years, women have set much lower standards" for themselves in chess than men.

Disappointingly, Ms Polgar does not really answer the question.
All those sounds like excuses rather than "explanations".
Is she confessing that she also has not tried "hard enough" to be ranked higher than "among the top 100" in the world?

So the question persists: why have there been no female world chess champions?

[Publius6961]

Someone could write a good book on this whole subject.

LOL!

Only at his peril.
You think fatwahs are bad?

Just get the delusional rabid femenists riled up!

[jpl]

Many studies have shown that in general, women's brains do not handle spatial relationships as well as men's brains do. Part of playing chess well demands that one mentally manipulate spatial relationships and visualize these relationships changing. Personally, I find this very difficult--my brain just doesn't do that well. But that's not to say that this ability can't be developed in women, and I believe that teaching my young daughter to play chess helped her to develop this ability to a greater degree than most girls have.

Well said, and you're correct about the spatial relationships, though we're not supposed to talk about such things in this age of political "correctness". I believe all parents should teach their young children (boys and girls) chess, it's great activity for the mind.

It's interesting to contrast chess with a game like bridge, one of the few mind games that depends highly on communication and partnership and little on competition. I don't believe that it's just a coincidence that women have always excelled at bridge, as communication and partnership have long been known to be traits that women excel at more than men.

[paolop]

Women with a checkered past are often discriminated against.

[LibFreeOrDie]

"It's interesting to contrast chess with a game like bridge, one of the few mind games that depends highly on communication and partnership and little on competition. I don't believe that it's just a coincidence that women have always excelled at bridge, as communication and partnership have long been known to be traits that women excel at more than men.

I think that's why girls are not attracted to chess. It's too serious and quiet. For girls, a game isn't fun unless you can chat and laugh and work together.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Zsuzsa's sister Judit is a superstar who has been a 2700-rated player in the past (she's currently taking a break to do the "mother thing", if I recall). But there is a big difference in ratings:

• 1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2804
• 2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2786
• 3 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2757
• 4 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2754
• 5 Leko, Peter g HUN 2749
• 6 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2741
• 7 Adams, Michael g ENG 2741
• 8 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2735
• 9 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2715
• 10 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2713
  ...
  
• 199 Polgar, Zsuzsa g USA 2577

That 227 point gap between Kasparov and Polgar doesn't look big to the layman, but it is a vast gulf. There are only about five women among the top 1,000 players in the world. If chess proves anything about innate differences in male and female brains, the evidence is pretty stark. But it's also true that Russia and Eastern Europe have very sexist cultures and American women have little interest in chess, so the jury is still out.

Shirov is a Russian who moved to Spain, so Russia still has five of the world's top ten players. ;)