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

Publicerades den 28 okt 2020
Read professor Wei Ji Ma's article here
Follow me on Instagram and Twitter for extra content and notifications 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
Check out agadmator's merch here
Mailbox where you can send stuff:
Antonio Radić
Franje Tuđmana 12
48260 Križevci
p.s. this is not my home address :)
Contact me: or
Download agadmator chess clock for iOS here
Download agadmator chess clock for Android here
Support fishnet here
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
NEW: You can now become a MEMBER of agadmator's Chess Channel
Crypto handle @agadmator
BTC address 3J7WigeEa95mNtZ8yJ26BBYexNz4r7XAUH
BCH address qzx5tu8uelq7s4tavsnk628f2t2s3g8gdvvnvcrvuq
LTC address MDrZdNjZm7btVkuLRdtrge9rwZn5TtjppM
ETH address 0x7a80bD0BF9c8e4B98afd43954fd9Df8e4a600245
Nano nano_383y7ofu5wsyfr9o8rh93aqaq8aixpdcbaud5iubydukz5moiadsirmuzgoq
Check out some of the books I enjoy
Check out ALL my videos here
Facebook: agadmatoryoutube
Twitter: agadmator
Instagram: agadmator
Lichess: 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
p.s. if you work in Twitter or Instagram, help me get Verified :)


  • It should be obvious that you need to take account of the participation gap. If the likelihood of any player being 2800 is .000001% than by sheer numbers men would have vastly more people in and around that rank than women. My problem with the article is most visible when you look at the final take away where he states we should first look for systematic baises in the chess world that negatively impact women. This is true, but misses the point. In any study you must isolate the variable as much as possible to determine whether it impacts the experiment or not. The correct phrasing isn't to look for a subset of environmental factors, but to control for the totality of factors that aren't inherent differences between men and women that make women less capable in chess. The economic phrase (All Else Equal) should be applied here. This bias is an issue in the discussion, because it gives people cause to disbelieve any evidence presented disproving inherent disadvantages as it leads one to worry statisticians examining this subject will try to conduct a study that will be favorable to their desired outcome.

  • Judit looks like a man with a wig on the Thumbnail. Poor picture choice maybe?

  • It took so many minutes before you start, lessen your talkies will you!

  • yes

  • But wasn't the "participation gap" theory of Bilalic or Ma rebuked by the article by Howard in 2014?

    • @Vincent van Mierlo Well, there *is* statistics in Howard's paper (see his Figs.2 & 3). And, no, Ma's article does *not* refute Howard's, because it does not mention Howard's main argument against the "participation hypothesis", i.e., that the ELO difference between top women and top men appears to *increase* in countries with *decreasing* participation gaps (his Fig.3). Also, Ma does not address another possible caveat of his "participation hypothesis" that Howard mentions, which is the fact that there could be a hidden parameter *causing* the participation gap (see Howard's example with boxing). Don't get me wrong, I am not at all saying that there is an innate difference between men and women's chess skills (I tend to think that there isn't!), but, as a scientist myself, I think that Howard's arguments have to be taken into account.

    • There’s no statistics in this article... also Ma’s article is written in 2020, and specifically refutes the articles like this

  • 12:28 why does knight to D3 not work?

  • Yes

  • Agadmator: "Magnus is the greatest chess player who ever lived." ME: Why do I have the feeling Fischer could've beaten him if Fischer were still alive today?

    • @John Cena don't be so sure about that, it would be a crazy match for sure

    • @BP97 Fisher is no match to carlsen

    • It's so hard to compare players from different eras, but it would be interesting to see how much Fischer could scale with the help of the modern computers.

  • There is a gap. But it's entirely due to the way people are raised. Boys are pushed to excel at games when girls are pushed away from even trying. The Polgars are a good example of that. If you raise your young girls to excel, well, they do.

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

  • Magnus resigned, but Knight-G5 is a playable move.

  • 12:29 why in that position you dont go for the fork with the knight, an trade rook for knight?

    • Ahh i just saw it

  • Wonder why black didn't take the white Nd5 at 8:35 ?

  • You cant say Magnus is the best player to ever play the game. He is the best in his time line. The fact that Fischer and players like him did not have such strong dependency on computer and well developed theory and solid analysis is the reason why he looks so good and taking that away I still think Fischer played like a monster. So please don't make such statements like Magnus is the best that ever played the game. He is the best of his time, obviously because he has talent and the learning aspect of chess is a lot better due to technology which was not available for other before him.

    • Relax, it's clearly just his opinion, and he's allowed to have an opinion. There's no way to prove who is the best, short of an unprecedented skill gap.

    • Well the "GOAT" thing is mostly subjective and depends on each person to think who it is. Magnus could be the strongest player because there are people who already have their legacy in chess, maybe in 20 years from now there will be someone who will be stronger than him. The same could be said in other sports like swimming and basketball, phelps and le bron could be the strongest player up till now, but we won't know if it still true in 20 years. And "if" magnus is born in fischer's era, maybe he will lose to fischer or maybe fischer will be the one who lost. But then it's all just an "if", and we shouldn't make it an objective statement. There is also "GOAT" based on the influence they give. In that sense even though anand and kasparov capabilities is below magnus, they are more influential than him. They can even be said to be more influential than fischer depending on who you ask. I think it's fine to think who other's/majority said to be "GOAT" isn't your "GOAT" because it can be just subjective matter

  • Funny seeing the arguments about celebrating judit because she is a woman. She should absolutely be celebrated for reaching such a level as a woman. Not because of any biological reason but because of the cultural barriers that mean she has succeeded in a male dominated sport. It takes much more than talent to do that, it takes guts and bravery and confidence.

  • Regarding the article.... Does it matter? And what will we debate next, if there is a race gap, or a sexual orientation gap in chess? It's a really bad idea to indulge these woke debates, which are essentially irrelevant, because in any area of life some categories will perform better than others. This leftist obsession with deconstructing society and placing people in different identity groups is so ridiculous and very harmful.

  • you mostly cover games where magnus lost

  • Does anyone know Carlsen vs Polgar records?

  • Magnus just much better than everybody in history.... I m glad to live in his era.... just insane

    • Really? Wait until i study enough chess

  • Kudos for saying their names correctly.

  • what about his "sorry about that" thing agad does in EVERY video... somo kind of thing that stucked or what? anyone?

  • Well played Judit!

  • I don't understand the article. Why isn't it fair to look at the best players? Say you have a nation of 10 states. Each state has the same population and the same amount of people playing chess. Now the chance that the best player in the country will come from any particular state is much smaller than that it will come from one of the other 9 states, but certainly, each state will have 10% of the top 100 players, on average? If not, where do all the top players come from? Now, if 10% of the people in our nation were women, and they all lived in the same state without any men, would it be unreasonable to expect that they had 10% of the top 100 chess players, like all the other states do? If the average rating of the genders is the same, but there are far more male champions, then that seems to indicate that the female players are from the right tail of the female chess talent bell curve? Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe the stereotype this article went furthest in killing is: Asians are good at math.

    • ​@Josh S We are discussing whether the performance gap in chess is due to nurture or nature, and your condition for having the debate is that I admit that you are right before we even get started? You're right, that _is_ pointless. How does participation explain half the performance gap? You keep saying that, but you will not elaborate. If women are 10% of chess players, why are they not 10% of grandmasters? What does Wei Ji Ma's analysis bring to the table? I am not jumping to definitive conclusions. Jumping to conclusions would be saying women are worse at chess because they are being subjugated, as you do. I am saying women _could_ be worse at chess for genetic reasons, that the current research supports that hypothesis, and that we should do more specific research on gender and chess prowess.

    • @Marbles There's no further point to this conversation if you're ignorant to the vast implications that sexism has on the modern world. Participation can account for half of the performance gap, and then socio-cultural factors can likely explain much of the rest of it. There's zero reason to jump to definitive conclusions about comparative intelligence when other factors are so pervasive, and not easily quantifiable. As I said earlier, it's not about sexism in chess, specifically, it's about a general view of the world, and the world is still very much sexist.

    • @Josh S No, I do not understand how sexism could cause the gender performance gap in chess, and I do not see much sexism in chess. If anything, I see women being favored in a sport that is desperate to have more of them, for various reasons. And all research indicates that there _is_ a significant gap between men and women in spatial intelligence. The research also shows larger standard deviations in general intelligence among men, so why is it surprising that men would reign in chess for meritocratic reasons? Why don't we just do the research?

    • @Marbles Call it whatever you like, but you would have to understand the social implications to realize that it's a far more reasonable outcome than any significant intelligence gap between the sexes. Can you even comprehend the impacts of sexism on the current development of women's chess?

    • ​@Josh S You are backpedaling now. If women are 10% of chess players, why aren't they 10% of grandmasters? How could underrepresentation at intermediate levels of chess cause far more underrepresentation at elite levels? My best explanation for the data is that female chess players are recruited from the most talented women, while male chess players are more averagely talented for their gender. Due to the nature of normal distributions, that would explain what we are seeing, at least at the resolution we are currently examining it at. I wonder if you would find the same pattern among runners; the average white runner being as good as the black one, but the top runners being predominantly black.

  • ah yes, gender pay gap. The WNBA should make as much as the NBA, there are reasons you see separate leagues. If women want more money then that is your problem with your league and your marketing of yourself. Don't come into a mans league and cry about a pay gap when you can't even beat the man. how hard is that? you want more money? then figure your shit out or beat the best male then sit back and watch the benjamins flow into your account.

  • If there isn't a gap why is there a seperate female competition and seperate female titles?

  • Can you expand on the Kb1 move? You mentioned you never know what may be lurking behind the corner but isn't this a waste of white's momentum?

  • Without doing a deep dive into stats, Wei Ji Ma is 100% correct. Look at is this way, becoming a GM is a very difficult thing to do, so it's extremely rare. When you have a participation gap between genders that is as massive as the one in chess, you're going to have fewer of the rare types of players that ultimately become GM level players, which makes women's ability seem inferior. Crank the participation numbers all the way up for women, wait a decade or two, and suddenly the top players would be of a roughly equal gender mix

  • I wrote two response comments here and both were deleted in seconds. Very suspicious! I was not disrespectful at all in either comment, but I was factual. I do not believe agadmator deleted the content. Far more likely that it was YT, since the deleted comments were gone faster than they could be read by a human eye.

  • Of course men chess players are better than women chess players. I'm saying this based on who keeps winning the world championship

  • Blind fold game means?

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

  • I read the article, i see no flaws in the logic and math used, my conclusion is that there is no gender gap

    • @Mark Mark lol the timestamp is not for this video: it is part of the reference for the comment on the article I am quoting! 🤣🤣🤣 I was hoping it would make it easier for you to find the comment I am quoting from.

    • @Daevor The Devoted why did you send a time stamp?

    • @Mark Mark IraGraves 10/31/2020 12:37 "I reproduced the distribution presented by the author in Excel with the current FIDE rating list. The excel file can be downloaded here: Using the excel file, you can choose any other filter conditions or just take the whole world and all players. The ELO gap in the data is then simply undeniable. For example, the curve for Germany simply shows a clean bell-curve-like distribution with the female curve being around 200 elo below the male curve (140 for non-juniors). The curves for other federations vary, but allow similar conclusions. One can only conclude that the author cherrypicked "Indian non-juniors" and then tried to rationalize this by saying junior ELO would be unreliable and that he had been working with Indian data in another project and therefore picked this country." Perhaps you do not consider cherry-picking data to be a flaw..?

    • Oh and i did read some of the comments on the article " What gender gap in chess? " and i did not see any that caught my eye, did you have a particular one in mind?

    • @Daevor The Devoted Thanks for the article, yes now i realize there is a flaw in the first article, however I do still draw the conclusion that women face discrimination and I do not believe the gap is genetic as some have suggested, after all that article does state: "Can we say that men are “statistically” better than women in chess? Not at all. We can only say that, according to this very specific experimental setting, men appear to be better than women in top-level chess even if we account for relative participation figures." Of course there is more research to be done, but considering how things like this have worked out historically, minorities tend to be shone in an overblown negative light, so if i had to bet, I would still bet that women would be as good as men in chess if they did not face discrimination.

  • This doggy toilet face, agadmator, proving once again he has no business in commentating chess and that he is biased. Also hates Carlsen with all his heart because he'll never be 1% of what Carlsen is.

  • I agree to Judith Polgars statement

  • 1:42 why do you often say sorry for no reason then do a mysterious thing under the desk.. What are you doing!

  • Dont think there is a gender gap in chess or any kind of mental sport. There is just an interest gap, there are more male chess players, same goes for esports and card games.

    • No thanks.

    • Hate to break it to you but that's just the ignorant PC logic. There's a biological gap. The fact that men are better at somethings and women are better at other things shouldn't be controversial, but it is, and here we are.

  • Loved the article! Clearly written and interesting data. Seemingly no room to question the statistics but some commenters are managing anyway. The interesting questions for me: How can a population of 97% men approach the subject of women's chess participation fruitfully? If individual choice is the driving factor in participation rate then why do rates differ by gender? What are the cost/benefits of long term chess participation? If there is a real difference at the top, does the controversial 'greater male variability hypothesis' hold for chess ability? (I mean, how many female hangers-on will watch as many agadmator videos as I have without learning a thing? How many homeless female patzers have you ever seen spending their lives playing chess?). Im glad there's an IM out there doing this kind of work.

    • "controversial 'greater male variability hypothesis' " Controversial? Controversial?!?!?!?! A fact isn't controversial simply because it upsets some people.

  • I don't think there is a gender gap, there is simply not enough female chess players playing the game compared to men, I think. So many notable chess legends are male, its actually crazy now that I think about it. I don't think females simply aren't better than men at chess, its just that very little of them have a big interest in chess.

  • Is There a Gender Gap in Chess? Of course there is а Gender Gap. Currently in the top 100 chess players, there is only one woman in 88th place. (

  • Great game here!

  • If there isn't, why do Women have their own division and games in world championship play?...

    • Because some people believe it would help attract more women into chess. But many top players like Ho Yifan and Judith Polgar are not too thrilled about it. Infact, Yifan actually quit a tournament because even though it was a mixed tournament, she was matched up with women for the first 6 matches or something.

  • A 2003 quote from a woman bridge champion: "In club play , women vastly outnumber men.... But men predominate in competitive play." So not everything is a numbers game. The professor and Agadmator cherrypick. To make his point Agadmator picks the only game Carlsen lost vs Polgar( not his 11 wins) then to justify Judit low score (20%) he says that only happened because Magnus is an anomaly, but Judit has worse score vs 4 other players at least. He also says that plenty of men have far worse score vs Carlsen but that´s not true. Those men usually dont get to play multiple times vs him in the first place. I'm not saying it doesn't happen occasionally, one example I'm aware of who isn't a man but a woman is Hou Yifan: 0.5-6,5 (7%).

    • Absolutely. In fact, when he said that, I was all: "Waaaaait a minute, are you saying Judit _isn't_ an anomaly?!?!?!" (meant to make the word "isn't" in italics. I know in whatsapp you wrap it in underscores, but dunno how to do it here)

  • I didn't think I could love agadmator even more. Thanks for sharing this absolutely accurate and important article - as a molecular biologist turned scientific sysadmin / developer, I not only despise wrongly interpreted data, but also know first-hand about the struggle of female-presenting individuals in male-dominated areas. I was watching this on my partners laptop, but made a point of logging in on my own account to make this comment. Thank you and keep up the good stuff

  • There always has been a gap between men and women at the highest level of play, because of social reasons? No. It's due to evolutionary reasons, ie. the greater male variability hypothesis. It's more evolutionary fit for males to have a larger variation in traits (like intelligence) as they are more 'dispensable' from an evolutionary standpoint. So you will find more males at the upper end but also more males at the lower end of the spectrum.

  • Judit is alright lookin =)

  • Really good to see studies like these. I've seen similar material on women participating and performing in esports, and this seems to come up with very similar results. It's not some magical biological factor, it's simply the way humans work: most people get obsessed with a game within a certain window of age if they later end up seeking it as a profession. If the social and institutional support isn't there, and the incentives for getting good aren't there... well, there are millions of other things to get obsessed with in life. You don't develop the passion to devote your life to a game in a vacuum

  • I agree with the article. The commenters underneath seem incredibly ignorant though.

    • It is not true the fact that if the women players are 16% of the total so they should be the 16% of most rated players. The motivation is that the probability of being in a specific range of ELO is not uniform. The next is an example, not a true statistic. I hope it make things comprehensible and not more complicated: if you take 100 rated players a lot of them would concentrate at a middle level, say 50 of them at 1800 ELO. There would be a small number of grandmaster over 2500 (say 3) and a small number of players rated under 1000 ELO. They wouldn't be one between 1000 and 1010, one between 1020, one between 1030, and so on... So the percentage of women players in the higher range is to calculate relating to the probability of being a women player AND the probability of being in the higher range. This change the ratio. I hope this comment is useful to understand this fact

    • Believe what you want but the guy's statistics were cherry picked AND slanted to create the narrative he wanted. Why else do you think he picked such an obscure category like "Indian non juniors"? His opening statement conflicts with the numbers he later quoted for Indian non juniors as well. He quoted 16% female participation rate then said we should expect 1.2 to be in the top 20 which is 6%. His jagged distribution curve is also indicative of a ridiculously small cherry picked data set. He goes on to say "it is a bad idea to focus on the top male and female players". Why? Because it doesn't fit his narrative. When people talk about men dominating chess, they aren't talking about 1400 rated players, they are talking about the top level of chess. No one is talking about male 1400 players dominating chess, lol. There has been ONE woman in history that has made the top 10. I would like to see his statistical analysis explaining why that is to be expected. If 16% of the players are female, then you should expect 1-2 in the top 10 on a regular basis. FWIW, this guy's other chess article was about how "genius culture" excludes women from the world of chess... as if women are that fragile that they run away from a game they love at the first sight of "genius culture".

  • It is not gender gap, it is a brain gap.

  • For any employers, surveillance, intelligence agencies reading this comment. This is merely opinion. Yes, there is an obvious gender gap because more or less females exist to breed with. I mean think about it. In pure terms of survival, it makes much more sense for the male to go out hunting; I don't think anyone would disagree. Sure, you could attribute it to culture since there are women very capable of hunting; but those are a diamond in the rough. Even in something like chess the same point is true. To some extent most women chess players care about their appearances to some extent, at least much more than their male counterparts. That 30-60 minutes of prep time is already cutting down on the time they have to think about the game. And that's because we live in a society where males and females have different roles and responsibilities. That is just reality. I mean, why do you think Hillary lost to Trump in 2016? You don't think the fact that feminism being a 'recent' idea had a role to play in the eyes of the voters? That perhaps it was still ''too early" to elect a female President? And why Trump ended up winning those swing states? For that reason, wtf are democrats thinking with their past 2 nominations? Hillary and Biden? I mean, seriously? We could've had Bernie or Tulsi this year instead...

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • Interesting article. Would suggest that women don't need their own division then.

    • @Hopelessly Dull 🤪

    • Then explain what your reason is for believing we should have intentionally gendered tournaments that doesn't include men being hurt by losing.

    • @Hopelessly Dull 'hurting the male psyche' are u that ontologically compromised? I told you, men make up the most outliers. It therefore follows that they are the overwhelming majority of those that go to and see success in tournaments. A tournament player is not a median chess player; or even a median 2200.

    • @JebacTych Policjantow Why would women need to have the option to play in a different division? Aside from, of course, the risk of hurting the fragile male psyche?

    • @Hopelessly Dull it's also not segregation because it's not forced; if you read what i said you would see i offered the opinion that female only tournaments ought to be AVAILABLE; not mandatory for females.

  • Out of curiosity, what language call THEIR or FROM a country, 19:10?

  • I've asked the same question about women and men in pool (billiards). Not exactly comparable, but pool doesn't demand great physical strength or endurance. At either game, what would be any possible explanation for having separate rankings and events? Just asking.

    • The justification is to encourage participation in the activity by the smaller group, which would otherwise not see as much coverage in mixed events. Longer term separate pools may be unnecessary and undesirable, but while the participation rates are so skewed they help highlight women who do participate.

  • gap in skill/rating? yes. gap in ability to get there? no. i rest my case

  • "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

    • @antonio worley It's only an anti-woman sentiment if you refuse to account for the massive discrepancies that exist due to sexism, at unquantifiable levels. This is the kind of stuff that can barely be researched, because we simply don't know how women and men might have competed in chess in a non-patriarchal society. The simple fact is that chess has been a boys club until only relatively recently in terms of human history. I'm not telling you that any claims of male superiority are outright false, simply that it's ridiculous to go down that road, when not only is there an obvious participation gap in chess, studies even show that women are more intimidated by male players, and play worse against similar rated male players than female ones. It's just utterly absurd to be worried about whether there's reasonable proof that men are simply capable of higher levels of intelligence, when the world has always been created in their image. My advice? Let's revisit this topic in another few hundred years.

    • @Josh S He even says it in the video, Magnus is an anomaly, there will always be more men anomalies no matter how many women take up chess. That woman is supposedly the greatest female chess player of all time and just look at their record playing together. If you think this sentiment is antiwomen just keep in mind you're completely misunderstanding my point, which is fair. That's what happens when you fall into this post-modernist thinking, rationality flies out the window.

    • @Varun Singh Great points. Sadly completely misunderstood judging by the replies to your comment.

    • @Varun Singh you should read the entire article

    • @Varun Singh 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.

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

  • i know answer without watching

  • Not sure about gender gap, but there IS a Magnus gap in chess.

  • Magnus Carlsen looks like a 14 year old in 2014 😂

  • Free black pawn @6:20. White bishop can take black pawn. If black knight takes bishop, white knight on D5 can fork an attack on the black queen and rook.The attack by black bishop on white queen and king is protected by white knight on D2. I am a 1580 rated player :) so if I am missing something here can someone please comment? Thanks!

  • Nice argument in the article. It seems the normalized distributions of achievement of the genders are indistinguishable.

  • 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.

  • The chess world should ne quiet about the subject. Nowdays the SJW and crazy feminists might want more diversity and representation in chess That means any of their gender will have 2 queens intead of one. And to further take down the patriarchy, their opponents will play without a queen. Studies show that boys and girls play competitive chess equally until they reach puberty. After puberty, womens capability to play chess decreases drastically. But dont go around spreading this scientific facts or you will be called misogynistic.

    • @flavione84 yeah but im not offended, nor am i saying the science is lying. you love to imagine that nobody can handle the science, and everybody is so offended by you. thats part of your victim mentality. but what about the scientific argument in the article agadmator posted? the fact is science is more complicated than saying "studies show X so therefore im right." you think youre so much smarter than everyone else but the issue is more complex than you make it out to be because you just want to satisfy your belief that men are naturally better than women at chess. id be more than happy to accept that fact if its true, but there is no way to prove it when there are so many societal variables that get in the way of proving it. im happy you have a nice family. now try to be more intellectually mature and youll have an even richer relationship with them

    • @Andrew L what happened about "it is science man....come on man". Biology and chemesrry doesn' lie, if you get offended tgats your problem. Btw i have a very nice and lovely family with awesome parents, an awesome wife, a one and half boy and a girl coming soon in december. So i dont really care what you think or call me. Bye

    • i wont call you a misogynist - just a simple-minded, whiny baby suffering from a victim mentality.

  • I read the paper. The resulting thesis is fundamentally flawed and anyone with a slight knowledge even of marketing, not to mention among other more "hard math" sciences, can understand why.

  • Thank you for the article link!

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

    • What are you hoping to achieve by copy & pasting someone else's comment?

  • This is what happens (about the article) when you do not really know how to work with math. In order to check what he pretends, he should just take a sample and perform the conditional probability (over and over). Its just statistics and probability. What he did in the article is "bla, bla, bla, this is what I want to defend and I will try to justify my opinion using dirty graphs". In any case, tbh, idc.

    • @Andrew L ok

    • @Ernesto Mamedaliev lol but you are literally guilty of all the things you accuse him of. you are the sickness of our society. what references would you have liked from him? he makes a data-based argument based on the rated players from India and explains where he gets that data from. what is missing? no method? he clearly explains his method. is it rigorous? well no its not like a full research paper fully looking at all data from various angles. but its a relevant study to the question at hand, and uses a large enough sample (all rated players in India) to find meaningful relationships. YOUR criticism is what is not rigorous. first you replt vaguely saying he should perform conditional probabilities over and over, and then you admit youd have to think more to say how to do a study on it. literally YOU are the one who said "bla bla bla, this is what i what to defend" and then even worse, you give no defense. total projection of your own faults onto the author, dude, you need to take a hard look at yourself

    • @Andrew L To be honest, I would have to think a little bit about how to perform a study on it. Im just saying that the article he posted is a "piece of sheet". No references, no method, nothing. Since Im a physicist, I think that I may I some criteria in order to judge if an article is plausible and if the results given could have some validity. Im telling you that it is not rigurous, he just left some graphs trying to convice us that he is very smart, but that article would never be accepted in any serious scientific community. Dear, admit it or not, it is just a sample of propaganda of the mental sickness of our society. If he is trolling, he did it well.

    • lol wow. could you be a little more specific as to how you would run this statistical study? it is SO obvious you do care - you get triggered by people suggesting anything is flawed about your gendered view of the world, you present a vague rebuttal and then you claim that - "oh actually i dont care" - so youre off the hook in actually putting up a fight. lazy, embarrassing, intellectually weak, and harmful.

  • I really liked the first article, using elementary statistics to prove that there is no performance gap. A similar gender gap analysis on bridge players would be interesting, as the participation gap is much smaller.

    • @Harry Dewhurst The point of the article is not to give you the answer to the question of gender gap but to explain that the content of the og article is insufficient to draw such conclusions. When you looked at the overall data you can clearly see that the og article cherry picked the data when one of his main argument is that you can't only pick the top players and have to look at the overall. As of the tone criticisms, it is as you say a criticism not an argument that he made.

    • The article itself said 'These sources should be trusted more than my simple non-expert and biased opinion.' The method they used was very simple and one of the criticisms of the original was the tone... Not only that the original never claimed the participation gap was the single factor and mentioned systemic problems The reason the og article didn't do a full meta analysis is because the example served its purpose and generally had continuity and I cant really fault it

    • You should read this complementary study which shows more consistent and statistically correct results. (and not biased🙄)

    • Exactly! I'm going to have that link saved to drop where it's needed 😳

  • for we all need Jesus, all sin and fall short of The glory of God and the wages of sin is death. the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, for Jesus died on the cross and rose again and by His blood our sins are forgiven. there is no other way than Jesus for He is The Way The Truth The Life and no one comes to The Father except through Him. for it is by declaring with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you are saved see romans 10:9-13, i encourage you to read your Bible and invite The Holy Spirit to guide your mind as you read, john romans psalms luke and mark are good places to start. God bless God Jesus The Holy Spirit love you and be with you forevermore in Jesus Name we pray amen :) only One God our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ i am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. galatians 2:20 in Jesus Name we pray amen, pray for the peace of israel pray for those who are persucated for righteousness sake for their is the kingdom of heaven see matthew 5:10 pray for the brethren pray for me in all things praying for you in Jesus Name we pray amen may you believe in Jesus and be saved in Jesus Name we pray amen i encourage you to repent of your sins turn from them and come to believe in Jesus for it is by declaring with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you are saved and all who truly put their trust in Him will never be put to shame in Jesus Name we pray amen in Jesus Name we pray amen (see romans 10-11) for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, no one is promised tomorrow and Jesus alone saves all in Jesus Name we pray amen God bless God Jesus The Holy Spirit love you and be with you forevermore praying for you pray for me in all things through trials and temptations and sin and to be more Christ like everyday for Jesus is perfect and the same always in Jesus Name we pray amen Jesus loves us all and died and rose again to save us all for by His blood our sins are forgiven, it is God's gift to us to be saved for we do not deserve it and we can not earn it but when we believe in Jesus we are saved and have passed over from death to life with God and Jesus forevermore in Jesus Name hey only God Jesus The Holy Spirit are perfect and only One God our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and we can be made righteous when we come to Jesus for while we have sinned and fall short of The glory of God Jesus The Holy Spirit but when we believe in Jesus and come to Him our sins are forgiven and we can turn from sin and wickedness and live a life worthy to Jesus in Jesus Name we pray amen Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? micah 6:6-8 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. john 14:6-7 do not use The Lord's Name in vain instead honor God love God with all heart soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself, believe in The One God has sent Jesus Christ for this is The Work of God in Jesus Name we pray amen That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. romans 10:9-13 only God Jesus The Holy Spirit are perfect and when we come to Jesus we can be saved for by His blood our sins are forgiven and when we believe we are saved, i encourage you to read your Bible for it alone is God's Word for us and invite The Holy Spirit into your life for it is God's Word and Spirit that give light and life to all for Jesus is The Living Word and all who believe in Jesus are saved and have passed over from death to life. they re no longer separated from God for eternity but have life and peace with God and Jesus forevermore, instead of being condemned to the lake of fire we have life in the new heaven the new earth and the new jerusalem where there is no more death or mourning or sorrow or crying or pain or sin for Jesus bore them all on the cross taking them away forevermore and when we truly believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior we are saved in Jesus Name we pray amen come into The Kingdom of Light accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior today amen amen For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son john 3:16-18 come to know Jesus today He died on the cross for our sins and rose again, so we can live with Him forever because He loves us, by His blood He has victory over sin, death and hell amen. God Jesus The Holy Spirit love you and be with you forevermore amen God bless amen :) :)

  • Ti s iz Hrvatske? Super je kanal inače

  • Clickbait by the man himself? lololz

  • When you lose to someone in chess that has no eyes.

  • Fully agree with the article.

  • Holy s***t i this is the first time i've seen the right move. And I didn't take more than 30 sec. Could just be a lucky guess though, lol

  • The biggest thing holding women back in any field is their unwillingness to devote 12 hours every day to truly master something, not that most men want to do this either but when you´re talking extremes...

  • I mean this is ridiculous to compare.. Polgar is basically an honorary man

  • When its gonna be Engine chess tournament? Lol

  • Greatest Chess Players Ranking

  • captures, captures. :-}


  • Women and feminists will complain no matter what men do to please them. Dont even bother, simp.

  • Of course there is a gap ladies long play is to let guys think they are in control 😂😂😂 I'm onto their game!!

  • What reckless article, completely dismissing biology and just chalking it up to a numbers game. Pure madness.

  • You should do also polgar-shirov 1995 a grear game with the monkey's bum deferred opening

  • Men are expected by their culture to push themselves harder in their careers, even to an unhealthy degree, and women are expected by their culture to be supportive spouses, even at the cost of their personal ambitions. That explains a lot about the gap. Historically there was a biological basis in how these gender roles came about, but that's largely vestigial these days. It's unhealthy on both ends and it's time something changes.

    • Maybe 20 years ago..

  • Gap is huge❗ 😉

  • So only 4 players and it is an event, well this could be easily hosted inside of one of these players houses LOL.

    • There were two player events that played out like top tier professional boxing, in terms of promotion, during the same time.

  • Why not take a random sample of same rated men and women, and look at the accuracy of their moves by stockfish. I understand that accuracy isn't actually too good of a metric since engines play like well engines and humans like humans, however it seem to me that this is the easiest way to have an unbiased third observer. Because until a woman enters the world chess champion and actually comes at least close to winning (if there are examples of this, please do tell me) there is no way the public perception could be swayed from the fact that all the best chess players in history are male. Again this is not some sexist speech, i understand that the distribution of men and women in chess plays by far the most important factor, which is why I would like the aforementioned objective test to see what the almighty engine says.

    • @Ryan Flanagan awesome copy pasta

    • Well the woman in this video Judit Polgar won against Kasparov in 2002, the World champion at the time.

  • In 2017 there were 1594 grandmasters. 1559 were men and 35 were women. That says everything.

  • top 100 chess player of all time "number 21 Mikhail #Tal " it is the #Black JACK number

  • Prof. Ma's tenet is in fact based on an assumption which cannot be proved by definition, namely that there are non-chess playing women who are - would be - as good as Magnus Carlsen, if they played chess. Indeed, the assumption cannot be disproved either...

  • The article mostly shows how subjective statistics are. From my experience of playing competitive online games and seeing this study. I conclude that while both genders are equal in chess, men have higher chance of having that innate talent at the game, it's not about the representation. Some will say it's unfair, but if you played a game long enough, you'll know you hit a wall eventually and no matter how much you grind you have little to no progress.

    • @Desu Vult it's just as you said it "plain numbers", and they often don't tell the whole story. Also both theories have logic, just one is made by a mathematician the other made by a player. And of course when you don't know what I'm talking about, you will dismiss my words, but it's ok as they say "game recognizes game"

    • Quite bold of you to think so highly of your own anecdotal experience over plain numbers and logic.

  • Can someone tell me why Hungary is abbreviated THEIR on 19:10?

  • I think hou yifan could of supplanted judit as the greatest female player of all time if she had continued playing instead of going to school

  • Yes. Women should be given more time in games when going against men. They should also be allowed to ask for assistance.

  • Love Your Canine Companion !

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

  • UNAM is the National Autonomus University of Mexico, the biggest and most important in the country and my beloved Alma Mater! :)

  • @Agadmator I'm super grateful for the link to the article that I was able to share with a non-chess friend who is earning her math degree. It was great excuse for us to chat up the statistical analysis over a topic I love as. P.s. I'm exhibit A of a chess fan who is weak despite both X and Y chromosomes, but can't help but love killing time playing 3 minute times games on a or lichess app. Thanks for all you do to keep widening our chess windows wider with your amazing content. P.p.s. You probably get too many messages to read them all. So regardless, I am glad you were able to share your successful surgery, and while I wish you and yours all the best staying safe and healthy, I'm totally using your comment as an excuse to count my own blessings (which feels like it takes more effort in 2020). Thanks for inspiring some good thoughts.😋