Women in Chess

November 25, 2016

It is November 25, 2016, the day after Thanksgiving, and the World Chess Championship has a day off today, but there are two games left to play, and Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Karjakin are tied with 5 points each. This event reminded me that as with the The Real Special Olympics for physical sports, we also have something similar for the World Chess Championship.

As is usual with these sorts of things they don't have an exclusive rule that sets aside the real title as a "Mens Chess Champion." Men and women both can compete equally for the crown. And what happens when you remove affirmative action, and special treatment for women, to allow them to play their fantasy game of Men and Women Are Just the Same?

It should come as no surprise that true equal opportunity leads to the same thing as segregation does, and that is that only men end up at the top playing for the title. In fact while occasionally one or two women will creep into the top one hundred rated players, today the Live Chess Ratings list has zero women on it. The top woman player in the world today has a rating of 2650.5 (and she is 80 points over number two), and the bottom of the top 100 overall list is 2653.2. The bottom of the top ten of the best in the world is 2770.7, or 120 points over the top woman player. And at the very top of the list is current world champion with a 2842.0, nearly 200 points over the top female player.

Since women have been getting a "hand up" for the past 60 years or so, from the schools and the government, so that they now get more college degrees than men, no one can legitimately claim that women are being held back, and that includes in chess. All the political forces today are pushing women as hard as they can to do things that women are ill-equipped to do, and chess is no exception. Why are women doing so poorly, when they are given complete equal opportunity?

I am not saying that women can't play chess. The top female players are really good. They would stomp all over the average male player in the chess clubs. The point is that the top female chess players are not even close to the top male players.

It is hard to tell if it is funny, or just plain sad, the way the feminists all make a huge fuss over one woman: Judit Polgár. She was really a good player. She played in men's tournaments and worked her rating up near the top for a time. Her peak rating was 2735. That is not even close to the World Champion today, but she was a serious player in her prime. However, she never had any hope of being champion. And her biggest claim to fame was beating Gary Kasparov, once. She was the only woman to do so, and that gets the feminists all worked up. What they don't tell you is that she lost eleven times to him and could only draw 3 times. As a general rule, grandmasters will draw. Even when one is slightly better they draw more often than not. But to have only one win and eleven losses with only three draws is a very bad showing usually. And remember Magnus Carlsen nearly beat Kasparov at the tender age of thirteen. In any sport if you or your team play fifteen games and you lose eleven of them, you don't have anything to brag about. And if you play that many games and only win one, well that is terrible.

This is not to belittle this lone win, but it is to belittle the morons who pump it up into more than it is. Instead of using their heads for reason, rather than letting emotions run away with them, we have claims that this makes her as good as the best men chess players. The real point, which nearly everyone either misses or intentionally ignores, is that even if Judit Polgár were a freak genius and were to stomp all over the men players—and if you listen to her supporters talking about the woman that all agree is the greatest woman player of all time, you would incorrectly think that is what she did—no other women were doing anything like that. If this were just the difference in the number of male players and female players, you would expect to find that the top one hundred chess players list would have 20% women, or at least 10% women on it, ranging up and down through the entire list. Today there are none, and when Judit Polgár was in her prime, she was the only one. There is clearly more to it than that.

If you want a good laugh, all you have to do is do a Google search on this topic and you will find a dozen different "experts" pushing the idea that this is not biological. Let's pretend that women and men have the same inherent ability to play chess, and we start from there for all our analysis. Let's exclude the only answer that works, the biological fact that men and women have different capabilities both mentally and physically (Vive la différence!), and pretend there is some other reason that even women who are bright and devote their lives to chess, even women who are completely supported by their government to be full time chess players, still come up short.

One of the funniest claims is that women are "outnumbered." There are more women in the United States than there are men. Around the world there are plenty of women, and they are not outnumbered by men. If they choose not to play, then they are not outnumbered, they are simply not motivated, for whatever reason, to play chess. I am sure that the simple fact they lose more often when they play couldn't have anything to do with that.

We find experts claiming that women are simply not driven to compete the way men are. That is true of course, but then the same experts will put on a dog and pony show to demand that you believe women are just as competitive as men. As is usual with feminists, they don't care about consistency nor the truth, just as long as they get their way.

I think the funniest part of this is how they squabble over allowing women to have their own little lesser chess world in which to play, so that they can win prize money, for playing at a level where they would have no hope of ever winning anything with the men. There is one camp that feels the money they win at their own tournaments draws in more women to play and so it improves the level of women's chess.

Then you have the whiners who berate the women for taking those crumbs, and the chess world for offering them in the first place, because it is holding women back from competing for the only prize that matters to the feminist: the men's title.

We somehow have found a way to live with the idea that women can dress up in sexy little outfits and play tennis with each other, and people will pay to come watch them play. They can't, and don't have to beat the top male players. No one expects them to. We don't waste ink or megabytes of data justifying the concept that women and men play tennis equally well, and if only we wait a few more years the women will catch up with the men in tennis. We know better, and just don't talk much about it.

But chess is different. Chess is mental, and the feminist is bound and determined to fight the idea that the brain of a man and the brain of a woman are quite different. Anyone over the age of ten knows that men and women think differently. Just having a conversation, you find that sex gets in the way often. The male brain and the female brain approach nearly everything differently. People expect this in their daily interactions. They simply accept it, just like having women's tennis.

If the intent of feminism were legitimate, and they were really trying to make things better for women, they would search what is real in the universe, and try and make the best of that for women. Instead, they create a false image of the universe and demand that we all pretend their fictional view is the only view. They have forced the government into backing this false image of men and women, and then we wonder why it is that nearly everything related to women is failing horribly.

Why is divorce so common? Why do women have babies without even being married? Why must they work and raise children at the same time? Why are unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases out of control? Why are young ladies taught to dress like they are ready to become prostitutes, a walking invitation to dalliance, sent off to school dressed like that, and at the same time told from every direction that they are to be terrified of marriage, because it is too risky?

Hasn't that insanity ever made you wonder? We are doing everything we can to induce our children into having sex, with the music they listen to, the TV shows and movies they watch, and the way they dress, and the way parents don't supervise them on dates, etc., while at the same time, trying to stop them from getting married too young, because "it might fail."

It not only might fail, using this formula, it almost certainly will. How many men will a girl go through before she finally gets married? How many girls will the groom go through before he gets married? They probably will have one or more STDs by that time, and maybe the girl has had a child or two by one or more of her lovers, or an abortion on her conscience, and the stresses on the marriage are high right away. Those are piled on top of the normal problems any marriage will face, and the entire thing is almost certain to collapse.

Feminism has one purpose, and one purpose only: to bring power into the hands of the ones who are driving this charade. They knew that the United States of the 1950s was far too powerful to take down directly. No nation on earth was its equal. The USA produced more goods than any other nation. The USA had schools that were as good as any nation on earth and our population was at the very top for education. Divorce was low, and marriages were sound. Men earned the paycheck and women were homemakers and mothers. The population grew up with this goal in mind. Schools taught this ideal to the kids.

As long as that continued, the USA would never fall. So, the ones who drove all the various movements in the 1960s to pull this country down, got behind the insane feminist movement and suddenly our families began to fail, our birthrate fell, and America went from being extremely healthy, to being very ill. The transformation was quite rapid.

Today? We are on our last legs. In another 20 or 30 years the difference between the USA and Mexico will be very small. It gets worse every year, and still we keep drinking the feminist Kool-Aid.

In the great scheme of things, chess is really unimportant. But your country, your children, and their future are in the balance, and these things are not unimportant, at least to me.

Return Home