Shelby Lyman on Chess: Vive la Difference
Sunday, May 24, 2015
(Published in print: Sunday, May 24, 2015)
Not everyone will agree with the notion that women’s brains are wired differently, as recently put forth by English grandmaster Nigel Short. But even were it true, does this mean, as he says, that they are, therefore, not capable of playing chess as well as men?
Short does not mention other factors that affect women’s performance at the chessboard. The most obvious is sexism.
Historically, men have not liked to lose to women, qua women. I’ve personally observed it, others — especially women — have observed and experienced it and reported on it and its consequences.
Another reason, suggested by Garry Kasparov is that women are not innately as aggressive as men.
The notion appeals to commonsense experience. But to what extent is aggression tailored by social factors?
If we observe the competitiveness of women’s sports — unleashed and enhanced by Title IX and the Olympics — his claim does not stand up very well.
A third reason for many women is the competing requirements of motherhood, a role that can be no less or more demanding than professional chess.
How is one to do both at the highest level?
Given these factors, and there may be others, we can logically turn Short’s claim on its head.
We may conclude instead: “Men’s brains are not as well equipped as women’s for chess. Women’s biological superiority is masked by other factors which inhibit actual performance.”
Full article here.