Gender Battle Checkmate!

Towards the back end of last year, Netflix aired a seven-episode drama series called THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT. It was based on a 1983 novel of the same name by author Walter Tevis (1928 – 1984) and centred around a 13-year-old female chess prodigy.

Thanks to the show – and also probably the global pandemic – chess had, and continues to have, a bit of a moment. According to eBay, the retail site saw a remarkable 273% surge in sales of chess sets in the first 10 days of the Netflix series’ release.

The world’s most popular game – made to feel fresh, kinetic and by all reports, damn near sensual by this most recent film treatment – seemed worth finding out a little bit more about. And so I set my sights on taking a tour of the quirky and completely brilliant world of competitive chess. I discovered some interesting things along the way.

My starting point was visiting the website

Like tennis, golf, athletics, swimming, darts, snooker and many other recreational sports, chess has its own world rankings system for elite players.

World chess competition is governed by a controlling body known as the International Chess Federation based in Switzerland. Founded almost a hundred years ago in 1924, this organization, usually referred to by it’s French acronym FIDE (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) publishes a list of the Top 100 Chess Players in the world every month.

The listing on stretches to the top 138 ranked players in the world. I started at the #1 position – Norwegian Magnus Carlsen – and began scrolling down, waiting to see when the first female name would appear in the list.

Nothing in the Top Ten so I kept going down. The Top Twenty and Top Thirty also came up blank for females. When I’d reached the 40th ranked player and still no female names had appeared, I scrolled back up, thinking I’d missed someone. Nope. No females listed in the World’s Top 40 ranked chess players.

Top 50 – no. Top 60 – no. Top 70 – also no. It wasn’t until I reached the name Hou Yifan from China, ranked as the 83rd best chess player in the world, that I was able to see a female included in the list. Hou Yifan, revealingly, is the ONLY female listed in the Top 100 World Chess rankings.

At just 26 years of age, Hou Yifan is a Professor at Shenzhen University in China. She is the youngest person ever to earn that accreditation at Shenzhen. She has been described as “an exceptional genius” and someone who is “leaps and bounds” ahead of her female contemporaries.

And perhaps most significant to the curious phenomena under consideration here, she is widely considered to be the second greatest female chess player who has ever lived (behind Hungary’s Judit Polgar (1976 – )).

And yet… and I say this with nothing… absolutely nothing but the greatest of respect and deference for a mind light years ahead of my own…she can ONLY make it as high as number 83 in the world rankings.

When you also take into account the fact Hou Yifan is only the third female to EVER crack the Top 100 World Chess rankings since official rankings have existed, then it’s clear something is going on. That ‘something’ is what might be termed a dinky di, boss-sized ‘gender gap’ in the world of competitive chess.

Leave it to your intrepid sleuth reporter SCENIC WRITER’S SHACK to unearth the inscrutable and in-no-small way enigmatic ‘How come?’

In a great many sports – name pretty much any sport you like – women are incapable of competing equally against men. Males have inherent physical advantages in the areas of muscle mass, speed and strength. This gender ‘superiority’ makes biological sense and is hard to argue against. Men are simply just generally bigger and stronger.

By contrast, chess isn’t a physical game, it’s a game of the mind. Some have labelled it the ultimate intellectual contest. And yet… males dominate at the top in chess. That’s not ‘just a little bit’ dominate. That’s completely, universally and unequivocally DOMINATE.

Almost all grandmasters are male, there has never been a female world champion and only one female, Hungary’s Judit Polgar, has ever reached the official top ten rating list (at her peak, Polgar reached #8 in the world in 2005).

Judit Polgar has also defeated the current World Number One Magnus Carlsen. At just 12 years of age she was ranked #55 in the world.

How then to account for this male dominance – with the very occasional notable exception like Judit Polgar – at the top in chess when physical strength does not enter the equation?

The first point of note is that male predominance in chess parallels that in domains such as mathematics, physics and engineering, which may tap some similar abilities and propensities.

Prior to the 20th century, it was a commonly held view that men were intellectually superior to women. Early brain studies comparing mass and volumes between the sexes concluded that women were intellectually inferior because they have smaller and lighter brains.

During the early twentieth century, the scientific consensus shifted to the view that gender plays no role in intelligence. And yet in so many fields of what may be characterized as ‘high intellect‘ – chess included – females are underrepresented, bordering on invisible.

The graphs below serve as but one example. Fields such as physics, chemistry and physiology would all be regarded as areas requiring high intellect. And yet, using Nobel Prize recognition as a measure, females hardly rate a blip on the radar screen.

A closer anaylsis of male brain and female brain intelligence reveals that while men’s and women’s average IQ is pretty much identical the distribution within each sex is different.

Let’s say the average IQ for both men and women is 100, well, the vast majority of women are on that average (obviously with some exceptions), whereas quite a few men can be way above it or way below it.

This is why we have so many male geniuses but on the flip side it is also why men fill the prisons. Some people would contend that men – generally speaking – are better analytical thinkers and problem solvers and since there is direct correlation between IQ and being good at chess, this is one, albeit, controversial explanation of the gender gulf between the sexes that exists in the world of top level chess.

Although there is a degree of truth in the simplified and perhaps slightly outdated gender stereotypes represented by the two illustrations above, I personally am more comfortable with the ‘mosaic’ idea of what is seen as typically male and typically female traits, as put forward in this 2019 book..

Having acknowledged the downside of gender stereotypes in their propensity to be in equal measure porous, blurring and simplistic, I’ll concede to finding playful truth in the depiction below –

Returning to the subject of chess, some researchers would suggest the under-representation of women in top level chess is due to social factors.

It can be argued social pressures discourage women from being competitive and, like snooker, chess is seen more as a male pursuit which means less females take it up as a hobby and so the talent pool from which to draw is much reduced compared to men.

This leads on to the question of the purpose and validity of female-only chess tournaments. In addition to publishing it’s monthly list of rankings for the Top 100 Chess Players in the World, The International Chess Federation (FIDE) also publishes lists for ” The Top 100 Women”“The Top 100 Juniors” and “The Top 100 Girls”.

Jennifer Shahade (that’s her with the pink hair above) is one person who holds strong views on the importance of female-only chess tournaments and separate titles and rankings for women and girl players.

Shahade holds the title of WOMAN GRANDMASTER and was at one time, back in the early 2000’s, considered the best American-born female to ever play the game. Her father before her was a chess FIDE MASTER and her brother is a chess INTERNATIONAL MASTER.

This is her in the ‘Hula-Chess’ video below. From someone who can’t play either chess or keep a hula-hoop twirling around my hips for anything more than a few seconds, this video is pretty impressive –

Shahade believes by introducing separate titles for women (with admittedly much lower performance criteria than ‘Open’ titles open to either gender) the world chess body FIDE has helped create female role models in chess.

This, she believes, has provided women a ‘leg up’ to help increase exposure for female chess with the flow-on effect of increasing participation at the grass roots junior girls level (see video below)

Other commentators have suggested separate titles for women (with lower performance standards) is mildly patronizing and that women-only tournaments assume that females are somehow intellectually inferior.

Former world #8 ranked player – not world #8 ranked female but world number 8 ranked playerJudit Polgar refused to play in anything but ‘Open’ tournaments. Her belief was and still is the end goal must be that women and men compete with one another on an equal footing.

Yet segregated tournaments allow those playing to get media attention, benefit financially and make friends with people with whom they have similar interests.

Considering the participation rate – probably due to cultural reasons – for woman and girls playing chess is so much lower than for men, separate rankings, tournaments and junior leagues for girls allow chess to grow and develop in an under-represented area.

Why are only two of the world's top 100 chess players women? — Hana Schank  — Aeon Essays | Chess players, Chess, Famous men

12 thoughts on “Gender Battle Checkmate!

  1. As an enthusiastic chess player, I badly lost to my wife who is barely aware of the rules and only wanted to play me, so I could ‘teach’ her. Only one of us learned a lesson from that experience and it most definitely wasn’t her. My wife is undoubtedly more intelligent than me on more or less every level but that was still a kick in the teeth…

    Liked by 2 people

  2. FWIW I think the societal factors are of great importance in understanding much of the difference between men and women in competitive environments. Whether women are innately less competitive and innately more collaborative is less important than the fact that girls are STRONGLY discouraged when it comes to competition and boys are STRONGLY encouraged to be competitive.

    I recall at the age of 8 or so (when I was seen to be a boy) getting into trouble from a number of adults for staying with my asthmatic friend to ensure he was ok when he was having a mild attack in the middle of a race rather than running off and ‘doing my best’ to win. The opposite is true of girls. Girls who sacrifice their own achievements to help others are held up as exemplars of virtue. This socialisation extends to all spheres of life, school, sports, work etc. It also explains some of the differences in jobs women do vs men (eg nurses vs doctors) and thus also the pay gap.

    I am not sure that this is as ‘natural’ as we think. Assertive girls are called ‘bossy’ and smacked down. Assertive boys are encouraged to lead. Etc etc This will thus have implications in all competitive endeavours whether ‘testosterone fueled physical biological advantages’ (such as strength, endurance, the blood’s oxygen carrying etc) apply or not.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Interesting research about chess players. My lack of interest in the game did not stop me from watching the series, and I’m thankful for that. I was amazed how the writers filled their story with so much tension and suspense. At times I was sitting on the proverbial edge of my seat.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Informative and enlightening as usual, Glen! I never knew the divide was THAT large! I figured a lot more men were playing chess than women but that the women who WERE playing had also achieved, here and there, the highest rankings also.
    It’s got to be nurture vs. nature for this one, and I think the “nurture” wins out for stalling, undermining, muting, discouraging any females who are naturally inclined toward chess, math, physics, astrodynamics, etc.
    I guess the female-only group is good for PR and getting the word out and getting the women in, but “lower criteria” IS fairly patronizing. Women can’t be firefighters, like you say, due to body differences, unless they pump iron and stay in tip-top condition. In that case a woman would have to “rise” up, physically, to where a man is.
    But why “go down” in chess? Hmm. Not sure that’s a good idea.
    On the light side, I think I qualify for either gender neutrality or gender amalgamation, because in that “If you have a male brain/female brain” I do three in the male list, three in the female list, and don’t do two in each list! Hehehehe

    Liked by 1 person

  5. You pay me the ultimate compliment AGAIN Stacey by fully engaging with the topic under review via your comment. You mentioned about the article being informative and enlightening. Thanks for that. But you forgot one more adjective – LONG! That means extra kudos to you as well for ploughing through the whole scroll of it.

    I’m the same about that male-brain-list-of-traits vs the female-brain-list-of-traits. I’ve got some ticks on both lists as well. That’s part of the reason why I think such stereotypes are a little dated (though in some people’s cases still hold true – like a manly man or a girly girl) and I prefer the patchwork quilt/mosaic idea of gender traits that has us made up of characteristics of both sexes, but with one maybe predominating.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s very well-researched. Of course, as a teacher, you have the skillz………..
      Yeah, I like lists and answering honestly, of course notice grammatical errors.
      But a huge portion of my brain DOES consist of the word CHOCOLATE and much of my life revolves around it…..

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Damn! I keep seeing that shameless Scenic Writers Shack product placing everywhere, Glen!

    On a more serious note, I think attempts to social engineer an equitable solution to the gender brain difference problem ultimately founder on the one loophole we can’t fill in: personal preferences. Whoever we are, male or female, we first of all do what we like, and then we do what we have to.

    Aptitudes determine preferences, and though we can all learn new aptitudes and thus develop different preferences, the intractability of this problem from a social perspective would appear to suggest that there are sets of basic aptitudes which both sexes possess which ‘bootstrap’ a lot of the preferences they more consciously develop with enthusiasm.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s