Rosen is better at Gambits, Levy is better at positioning. Eric is better at being calm, Levy is better at drinking protein drinks. Rated around the same I think.
@@StarDarps Dude watched someone talk about how this was a stupid thing to talk about and then immediately talked about it lmao. It's a shame the pin of shame doesn't exist on this video
Yeah but he is also forgetting a lot of other statistics and facts that answers the question he says we will never have the answer to lmao. Majority is true tho
Thank you for bringing this up. The harrasement is also online with chess, just started when I uploaded my profile photo and people can see that I'm a women... To be honest I do'n really care and I'm used to it but it's actually not normal to see it as normal.
Levy is awesome, I was listening more than watching the game, but it's funny how he was in the process of hanging a knight as he said "I'm not naive" and then pulled the knight back
Note that the polar sisters were kinda the result of the borderline unethical experiment of their mad scientist father like literally their entire childhood was focused on chess in a way no other person has been able to replicate like their father had Bobby Fischer after he went off the conspiracy deep end stay Living with them to train the kids (Fischer was at worst the 3rd best player alive at the time behind only Karpov and Kasparov even in retirement) and he was giving them day in day out training every day from a very young age like for learning chess you couldn't create a better environment and nobody likely unless someone like Magnus for example decides to train their own kid every day from like 3 years old, will never happen again
I can empathsize with someone not wanting to have a daughter in today's society where clueless leftists can't even define what a woman is, support female erasure by defending and enabling the mental delusions of transgenderism and worse the normalization of pedophilia as a valid sexual orientation.
when I was at chess school we hat relatively many women (teacher and 1-3 of 3-8) and honestly I don't remember any complaints about harassment (though we left at age 12 or smth) but on the other hand later in my live I sadly had to find out, that I've been pretty much completely shielded from all that stuff and was super lucky to grow up somewhere, where such things happend only seldomly so go on try to get your girls into chess and just hope to find a club with nice members
the bigger factor than how each gender is treated is in the sheer quantity of players from each. the more players of a country, for example, the stronger the country.
never knew things were that trash. Didn't understand what barriers were present for girls playing chess. Always happy to have my mind opened to important details about complex issues.
It's a lot harder to sexually harass someone when you can't see their face or tell whether or not they're a girl. With the sudden popularity of online chess, one can't help but wonder if we'll see a change to the gender ratio over the next few decades. There'll be a considerable portion of the younger generation who have rarely or never played chess with someone in the same room.
Perhaps, but the gender differences between men and women still exist. I think that the reason chess is not as popular among women is less to do with the points levy brings up and more to do with differences in interests. For example no one has been able to eliminate the different choices men and women make for career paths for example. On average men like to interact with things and women like to interact with people - in the career sense at least. That is why despite the push in some places to eliminate these differences, men still choose things like STEM and women still choose things like nursing. Which of those does chess seem closer to?
@@ramitch4581 As a few people in chat also noted men land on the extremes more often on average as well. We're the absolute peak at both being absolutely terrible and absolutely amazing likely due to the inherent expendability of men. It wouldn't be too surprising if women over the set of all people had the same or slightly better average elo than men while the absolute peak top end of chess(like super GM level) still ends up essentially dominated by men just by probability even in a situation where all meaningful barriers are removed. There are exceptions among exceptions, but to a large extent those people end up further highlighting the strength of the general trend, and none of this really says Levy is particularly wrong, especially as to things clearly wrong with Chess as a scene and the Chess scene's treatment of women of course. I would like to see barriers reduced to what degree people can reduce them.
@@sunderkeenin Agreed with you on your later point. I didn't want to bring up that gender difference because there are lots of bad actors in this comment section who strike whenever anyone discusses this topic without mirroring exactly what Levy said. A statement that could be inappropriately boiled down to "men are smarter than women" seemed like a bad idea here lol.
@@ramitch4581 There's a reason I was so particular about the wording, as I'd even argue the mean is more important than the peak level of competition because the mean is where most people experience the game, and making an atmosphere at the mean more accepting of women while the top players and personalities continue to try to treat women as equals as they ought can only be a good thing for everyone and is really the only way to offer ultimate resolution to anyone's arguments either way.
@@ramitch4581 This is a great point and it counterintuitively amplifies the more social equality is present... The more you elliminate genders, the more do stereotypes manifest, the scandinavian countries are a great example. They have way less women in tech than some 3rd world countries... I do also believe that even if all equal, women have on average a lot different approach to life and interests than men.
It's just like how people say women aren't as good in sports or esports or other competitive fields. If you have 10 million men playing some sport and only 1 million women, the men are simply 10x more like to have 1) better access to training resources than women's sports do. 2) simply due to the nature of statistics will have 10x the number of candidates capable of playing at the top level, and because of that abundance of top-level competition, creates a greater pressure to ensure that only the best of the best are able to compete, meaning the top 100 players in mens sports are going to be on average better than the top 100 women players because of that greater competitive pressure. If you give men and women equal access to a sport at an equivalent population, by nature of the human body being so flexible and able to adapt itself to its needs, regardless of its initial conditions, I would put a lot of money on men and women being equal in not just chess, not just esports, but athletic sports, contact sports, blood sports like MMA even. When you apply the exact same selection pressures across the board and don't automatically simplify, lower the standards of, or segregate sports based solely on gender, men and women perform the same.
I had two dudes bag to me about how they "pull" underaged girls and 4 dudes brag about what I could only describe as gang rape. Some men just never do and never meet those people and therefore think women are exaggerating.
I’m regards to the conversation about women’s success in chess, I think it’s one of those issues where I’m comfortable saying I don’t know. I feel the same way about other fields where there is no evident reason why women shouldn’t be on equal footing skill-wise, but aren’t. I think it’s possible that women aren’t as successful because of structural barriers, lower interest, and a little sexism. I also think it’s possible that, at the extremity of the bell curve, differences in personality and thought patterns between men and women manifest themselves on the chess board, with few exceptions. If that was the case, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with that. It wouldn’t make women dumber or less competent, it would just mean that women are less likely to have traits which predict extreme success in chess. I hate how touchy these topics have gotten. I think the reason why chess is specifically so touchy is because people associate chess=smart… which is dumb lol.
More men playing more chess does not really need to be because of sexism (I am not saying there isn't, I am saying that is no proof). There are cases like science where 90%+ of biologist are female, while 90%+ of physicist are male; In most universities, both careers are given in the same faculty, same building and common classes even given by the same teachers... and still men and women in tendencies are different.
Yep, but the point is that there’s still no vacuum free of outside influence/societal pressures. The argument isn’t that “men and womens’ brains work exactly the way in everything”, rather that we still have a lot of societal stigmas and pressures that influence the course of many people’s careers/lives. It’s literally just simple logic. If these jobs have been traditionally occupied by men for the last ~150~ years, you can’t just make certain institutions slightly more inclusive/enticing towards women and expect them to immediately become full. These things take time.
It’s more the fact that the various social pressures on men and women are so different that we are pressured into different things. In Chess, specifically, this is likely due to people seeing women as less intelligent or at least not seeing chess as a “girly” activity. It’s the same reason girls tend to like playing with different toys than boys as kids. There’s no inherent genetic factor that makes young girls want to play with dolls and boys want to play with toy trucks, but their minds are shaped due to the social pressures around them and the ideas they receive from their parents so many girls end up doing the “girly” thing and boys do the “boy” thing. While there are some general differences in male and female brains, they aren’t really notable and can largely be attributed to social factors rather than genetic.
@@gatosospechosop3 The thing that the other side never seems to consider is that many of the societal institutions are in place because men and women think and act differently and play different roles in nature not the other way around. It's really difficult to argue that nursing is 86% female because of societal pressures. It's difficult to argue because these are HUGE disparities. And they cant just be explained away by sexism because men are actively choosing not to do that job despite that it's a really high paying career field and it doesn't require 8 years worth of schooling and student loans to achieve. You will also find that teachers are overwhelmingly female. Daycare workers are female. Most jobs that involve some level of caretaking lean female. Thats not sexism or society discriminating against women, thats 10,000 years of human evolution on display. And thats okay. This doesnt justify discouraging women from participating in chess. But this push to make everything exactly 50/50 is one of the strangest things that I have ever seen modern people do.
@@benjaminshort4169 Once again, you can call it ''evolution' all you want, but what drives 'evolution'/an inherited reinforcement of certain values more than societal pressure? Listen, I'm not trying to argue that there are no inherent differences in brain chemistry between men and women, that's already been scientifically proven. What I am arguing, however, is that institutionalized inequity can't be solely attributed to ''evolution or psychology'', it's clearly both things working in tandem. Yes more women tend to go into nursing because the values of caring, comforting, etc. are taught to AND/OR come more naturally to women. However this in turn starts a societal domino effect where nursing is viewed as a ''women's job'', which dissuades men from entering the field. Thanks for providing a great example of how these societal forces work to meld our collective psyche around gender roles. To summarize: I do want to reiterate that I agree with your claim that certain tasks/roles come more naturally to certain one gender or another. The issue is taking this idea as a rubric with which to measure engagement in every field, and justify the status quo through ''evolution''. Everything effects everything else. It really is just common sense. Don't stop thinking through something just because you seem to have found a theory that fits your view of the world. I hope you have a wonderful day, I'm glad to have the opportunity to talk these things out like adults.
@@gatosospechosop3 "institutionalized inequity can't be solely attributed to ''evolution or psychology'', it's clearly both things working in tandem." I agree that the inEQUALITY we see in various professions and hobbies cant be chalked up entirely to evolution and psychology and that social pressures play some role in that. But I think you and I disagree on the ratio of the roles that each play. Let me be very clear: "social pressures play zero role" is not my position. What I said is that your side often discounts the TREMENDOUS role that psychology plays. It is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that women dominate caretaking roles, in large part, because of their evolutionary niche. And that men dominate things like hard labor and military roles, in large part, because of their evolutionary niche. I also don't appreciate the statement: "Don't stop thinking through something just because you seem to have found a theory that fits your view of the world." Respectfully Mr Tupac, the societal pressure + inequity view of the world is remarkably narrow theory from a scientific standpoint. It's taken seriously because it is politically useful and motivates activism. Don't patronize me as if I haven't thought about the alternatives.
Levy if you’re not a GM by 2024! Are you even concentrating. You’re playing an IM talking about gender inequality in CHESS simultaneously on the phone responding to chat and winning. I know you get nervous but if you can master that you’ll be a GM streamer of the year
Oh, he made a whole video about that last week. "Dude, my opening rating is 3000, easy. If I could stop throwing games because I get nervous about beating these legendary players, I'd be unstoppable."
Why are boys more interested in chess in the first place though? We can’t chalk that up to just socialization. This isn’t meant to be a hot take, it’s just I never hear this addressed when people talk about this.
8:15 anyone can make up their minds what you guys might be better at than the other person.. Don't need to be 2000 for that. Either Levy is trolling or just stupid. I mean I am 700 and I can say that Hikaru is especially good in bullet and maybe not the best in the world at classical.
ok, then just have a league explicitly for women and one for everyone. part of why women get targeted so much more is because every last one of us gets brought up in a world that oozes of sexism that can be boiled down to 50% of people are second class humans.
Honestly I think the crux of the issue is that women receive too much attention and men don't receive enough. I'd love to be approached by older women at chess tournaments. Women complaining about receiving the inverse seem unbelievably spoiled and naive to the positives of their situation. To only see them as a victim is a reductive way to view this issue and only serves to perpetuate the false reality that unwanted sexual attention makes you a victim.
What the fcuk???? You think a 14 year old girl being hit on by gms who are like 40, 50 years old, which clearly makes her uncomfortable, is a good thing??? How desperate are you for attentin that you WANT to be sexually harassed?
This comment is almost complete garbage, but there is a tiny amount of truth if you ignore 90% of it. The reason Cramling was harassed from a young age is essentially the same reason she is now making tons of money playing chess on the internet (when she's not even very good).
@@KillOnS nah, orbital might, but frank is getting more and more popular nowadays... I don't watch cramling or frank, but everywhere I go I hear people talking about frank. Even Gotham did a collab with him
lmao why cant he just be honest and say that the VERY smartest people in the world are nearly all men, and thats why the best chess players are men. its scientifically proven.
I've met some of the most unintelligent motherfuckers playing at chess tournaments (who some of which ranked very highly), chess has NOTHING to do with intelligence.
I find it disgusting how you mix those different things altogether. Also i watched that podcast, and i would say, that based on WHAT WAS SAID, there were no harrasement. At all. But what was not said.. maybe. And i would not be surprised, that she encountered some. Hell, im not a professional chess player, nor famous, and even i was target of some. But you packing it all together looks disgusting. Stop that. Metoo is one of most predatory things that happened and it looks exactly like that. Help victims. ANd dont mix creepy (or not even that, since creepiness often confused by women with something, that have nothing to do with what they percieve it is, sadly) behaviour with harassement. Also dont say "it would be equal" for men and women. No it wont. On grand scheme there may be same if we force everyone to play, but you talk about top 5-10% of players at best - and no, women wont be there. For a different biological reasons. But also they wont be in bottom 5-10% either. For SAME reasons. Stop equating result on margins with results in general. It is kinda dumb mistake, especially considering your major.
@@kza6648 I don’t know anything quantitative about this topic, but there’s some idea that males have higher (by how much?) trait-variance basically across the board. With large enough (how large?) samples, then, the tails (how far out?) of your distributions will be entirely populated with members from the higher variance group with very high (how high?) probability.