I don't see any racism here, the sexism charge is pretty thin as well. No one thinks it's weird to say that women won't ever defeat men in Olympic wrestling. His basic point that it's possible that there are physical reasons why more men are generally better at chess statistically really seems much tamer than its being painted.
Nonsense. Short makes specific biological claims that aren't backed up in science. No biological differences relevant to chess have been proven scientifically, unlike for wrestling. Short claims arise from his own personal prejudices not fact - that's sexism. Differences in the fortunes of men and women are much more likely due to social factors that have produced a much smaller player pool of women.
Also worth noting the hilarious losing record of Short against Judit Polgár!
You call him unscientific and then many some extremely dubious claims like "much more likely" and give one anecdote of the best female player ever by a significant margin.
I mean, the 'anecdote' of Judit Polgar is very clear evidence that the gap in chess between men and women is (at least in potential) not as large, right? With regard to the vast majority of physical sports, you'd be laughed out of the room if you said you think a woman can reach top 10 in the world rankings (the only example I can think to the contrary is ultra marathon stuff). Yet this happened with chess.
For the record I think this argument is completely pointless. But using the only woman ever to reach the top ten, and one of three to ever make the top 100, as an example of how there isn’t a difference doesn’t make sense.
You need to look at distributions not outliers. It’s like finding the lowest ranked opponent ever to beat Carlsen and using the game where they beat him as an example of how there isn’t necessarily a large gap in skill between them.
It does make sense because the difference between Judit and the rest of the women doesn't rely on biology or the structure of brains but more on the background of upbringing . The argument here is not that there is no difference, the argument is that the difference is not necessarily strictly related to biology.
RunRepeat's study analysed 5,010,730 results from 15,451 ultrarunning events over 23 years, concluding that the longer the race distance, the shorter the gender pace gap. At the 5K distance, men ran 17.9% faster than women, but at the marathon distance, this reduced to 11.1%. Over 100-mile races, men only had a 0.25% advantage, and for races above 195 miles, women were recorded as 0.6% faster than men.
Now tell me the fastest times ultra marathons have been run (wold records) and if they are male or female and the % difference between them in running time / distance (apparently runners like going for a set number of hours/days not just distance in time).
The question is whether those different wirings are biologically innate, or if they're rather a product of the differing upbringings and experiences men and women tend to have. One Hungarian girl was raised more like a chess machine than a woman, and we know how that went.
that's not a gotcha. he's saying/claiming that funding the research that could yield such evidence is highly unfashionable.
I don't know whether that's true or not, I just wanted to point that out because you're being glib in a way that's unhelpful to the discussion, even if it gets the cheap upvotes.
Regardless of whether you think his specific views are true or not (I'm not picking a side here myself), they are not so obviously beyond the pale as to render him obviously a sexist. Sexism requires a specific prejudice or discrimination, which is not on its face present when the actual argument being made is one based on biological differences when clearly many biological differences do exist that explain differential outcomes in many other things.
Shorts sexism has been well known by the chess community for decades, stop pretending that you need a random redditor to convince you and open up google
The statistical differences are (at least to a very large degree) a function of the different sizes of the player pools. That is not to say that there couldn't be additional factors (genetic or otherwise) but to just assume that the observed difference is based in biological differences is pretty much text book sexism.
I mean, I can see the point from the guy above. Is he really making specific biological claims as to why men are better than women at chess (which of course we don't know if they are), or he is just claiming that there are biological differences, and somewhere in those differences there is something that makes men more likely to be better at chess?
He seems convinced that men are better at chess, which of course is not backed up by science, but I don't see him claiming any specific reason for this, just "differences". Of course it doesn't help that the differences he mentions are bullshit.
What do you mean? Obviously men have been better at chess at the top level historically. But that's because of society reasons not biological. Science does not say that men are better than women at chess.
Of course it's possible they could be, but there is no known reason that explains it
But that's because of society reasons not biological.
We don't know that and you recognize this with your last sentence, so why do you write it like this anyway?
See, I just dislike it when this topic gets "misrepresented".
Currently we know that males are better than females in chess at the top, this is fact. We know that this is heavily influenced by participation rate (about 1 female to 9 males, according to the FIDE list).
At the top there is a significant difference between participation rate aka normal representation and actual representation. For example, left handed players have about the same ratio, assuming nothing selects chess for one or the other, but they are evenly distributed at the top (f.e. Arjun Erigaisi and Hans Niemann = 2 in top 20)
We also know that there are differences in the brain between males and females.
We can't rule out that other societal factors play into the difference, so we have to keep an open mind in this regard and be open to valid explanations for one or the other.
This is science, if it turns out that indeed it is biological that's what it is no matter how much you don't like it, just like Nigel Short has to accept that it's not if other factors turn out to be more significant or he is a bellend (which he is anyway and that's very public).
But, the bottom line is we do not know. Therefore it is easy to conclude that science does not say that men are better at chess than women biologically, nor does it say that they aren't, it doesn't say anything with our current knowledge.
...No? Women don't have separate events because they're biologically inferior. Women have separate events to encourage their participation. There are about a thousand societal pressures on girls that prevent them from becoming top level players, including the obvious. Women's titles and events are a means to counteract those.
If those events didn't exist the population of women interested in chess would drop even more significantly, and chess would be lesser as a result.
It is unfair for gender specific events to exist if that gender is not at a disadvantage against the other gender. It is also the soft bigotry of low expectations
No, it isn’t lol. Women taking testosterone will still get destroyed in every sport by men. We can see that with Olympic women with high testosterone levels from drugs that are worse than elite junior high school boys…
Different bodies. Many bigger differences.
I think chess isn’t necessarily a case of that, but men and women have huge differences from their dna, to their anatomy, to their bone structure….
I mean it could definitely be wrong, but how is it sexist? Even if there are biological differences that give men an advantage in professional chess, that doesn't automatically make men superior to women. Chess is just an activity.
In fact, I think calling this sexist could actually be more problematic, since it implies that if these differences actually did exist, men would be 'superior' in general, which is clearly not true.
You’re quietly shifting the goalposts from “is this sexist?” to “is this prejudiced?” - big difference.
By common use, sexism means asserting one sex is inferior or justifying unequal treatment; it covers stereotypes that enforce hierarchy. Short argued a biological explanation for why elite results skew male, which is a causal hypothesis about averages, not a direct claim that women are morally or intellectually inferior and/or should be treated worse.
If you think his claim rests on a prejudiced view of women, say which lines actually demean or deny women’s competence; if your standard for “sexist” is simply “controversial or wrong,” then that standard needs defending - cite a scholar who adopts it, because I’ve never seen it outside online takes.
There is some evidence. Whether that evidence is good or not is very debatable, but it's not just random speculation. Also, he's a chess professional who's played against/coached countless people over 4+ decades. By any objective standard (like that used in court testimony), his opinion itself would be considered expert evidence.
Disagreeing with the evidence or his conclusion doesn't mean he is being sexist. In fact, if you say his opinion is sexist, it's the same thing as saying that if women weren't equally good at chess then men really would be superior.
I mean it could definitely be wrong, but how is it sexist?
The simple answer is that you are not supposed to be wrong about some stuff. If you're not sure, you need to keep your mouth shut. (edit: maybe a better way to phrase it, is you need to keep your opinion to yourself)
In fact, I think calling this sexist could actually be more problematic, since it implies that if these differences actually did exist, men would be 'superior' in general, which is clearly not true
You're overthinking it. In the end logic and rationality only matter if they are correct. Or at least the person made every conceivable effort to be correct.
Otherwise, the statement is judged based on the actual claim, not the reasoning used to justify it.
Saying that men are intrinsically more capable at a mental activity than women is sexist. The only exception is if you are actually right. Not just about the results but the claim that this is caused by biology. If you can't prove it, don't say it. It's not a difficult concept.
So it’s sexist to say there’s any difference between men and women mentally? What about all the proven mental differences between men and women, like neuroticism ? Sounds like you’re just scared to broach the topic that men and women in fact are different.
It's sexist to say men or women are better at something due to biological reasons without overwhelming evidence.
This is not the same as saying that there are differences between men and women. Like, they are so obviously different, that I cannot see how someone could conflate the two in good faith.
I don't follow. People figure things out by talking, and being wrong isn’t some moral disaster. Tying 'sexism' to whether a claim ends up true doesn't really make sense.
Just curious - are there any researchers or scholars who actually argue that a claim counts as sexist only if it’s wrong? I’ve never seen that outside of internet takes.
Saying there might be a biological angle in chess is the kind of hypothesis researchers explore all the time, and I don't see how treating it like a forbidden topic protects anyone, it just shuts the discussion down.
You don't need an academic to understand formal logic, lol.
A claim that inherently places one sex above another in value/skill must require an effort to be defensible, otherwise it is simply an assertion reflecting a cognitive bias.
It's like the reddit comments where someone says, "didnt watch the video/read the article, but I assume this is XYZ" - a comment without any argumentative value that reflects nothing more than the commentors willingness to jump to unfounded assumptions.
When those unfounded assumptions create a hierarchy of persons, they are often some form of -ist. When those arguments are defensible by some means, they are much more akin to the truth-seeking through talking that you mention.
Honestly, this whole post comes across as super disingenuous. It's not like Short was engaging in some unbiased scientific debate about the role of sex in chess performance. You trying to conflate these questions makes me question your motives.
You should read what he said. Recognizing clear differences in gaming ability, not intelligence or intrinsic worth, isn't sexist. Would you say the same if he said men were better than women in Esports? Football?
"I have explained the reasons and I stand by it. In a lot of countries, at undergrad level, women are doing better. But in chess, it is just not the case. We’re talking about a yawning chasm of abilities. You cannot massage this fact to put a spin on it. One of the problems, I think, rightly or wrongly, people equate chess with intelligence. It’s a proxy. This is what really bothers a lot of people... I’m not saying men are more intelligent. I’m saying we’re different. We have different skills."
Sounds like a racists dream actually, so long as it's at an activity they're an expert at. I doubt he would have signed up to do something at which he might lose.
Pretty normal in simuls.
Otherwise, the neighbour boards could simply mirror his moves, leading to a inevitable tied match result.
Also, having the white pieces offers him more flexibility in his opening choices, leading to more variety.
No no I get all of that, it’s funny because he’s a white guy who flew to an African country to crush a bunch of black people in chess and is playing them as literally white v black. It’s optically a funny photo.
Ahh, I didn’t catch that at all. I thought you were (slightly) mocking him for needing the white pieces to win against amateurs which seemed unfair given how common it is.
People complain that you take too much time in 3+2 game, I'm not surprised there is a zoomer tweaking out in classical simul
I had a guy send me a snoring emoji in a 1 minute bullet game. The kids are toast.
I've had people do this to me even when they're lower on time. Like how tf am I too slow when I've used less time than you??
Ok thats kinda funny tho
Did he at least win the game?
No, the 5 seconds it took him to send the emoji on his phone probably didn’t help.
happens a lot in rapid, people complaining (why sign up for a 10min game then??) and adding sleeping emojis... then they get flagged lol.
He woke up and chose to own this kid. Hilarious🙏🏻
Most polite Nigel Short remark
To own you say…
You can never expect what Nigel will say next 😂
I mean it seems pretty safe to assume it’ll be something shitty and pig-headed at this point
You can certainly expect him te be his usual self ;)
Usually, it is some kind of insult.
See this is why 50mm squares are better than 55mm. All those chessboards are just a little too big for the tables
It aligns well with my own experience, those who complain your time usage always hang their pieces in the next couple moves.
Isn't that the racist and sexist guy? Fuck him
[deleted]
And it wasn't just a comment, he included that in the obituary that he wrote about him for a newspaper.
It wasn’t so much a comment as an obituary. And he also made sure to emphasize that he was a much better chess player than the dead guy.
Wait he's racist and sexist? Can you give a source on that
https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/ideas/i-stand-by-it-british-grandmaster-nigel-short-on-his-sexist-remarks-on-women-s-chess-111602527219695.html
I don't see any racism here, the sexism charge is pretty thin as well. No one thinks it's weird to say that women won't ever defeat men in Olympic wrestling. His basic point that it's possible that there are physical reasons why more men are generally better at chess statistically really seems much tamer than its being painted.
Nonsense. Short makes specific biological claims that aren't backed up in science. No biological differences relevant to chess have been proven scientifically, unlike for wrestling. Short claims arise from his own personal prejudices not fact - that's sexism. Differences in the fortunes of men and women are much more likely due to social factors that have produced a much smaller player pool of women.
Also worth noting the hilarious losing record of Short against Judit Polgár!
You call him unscientific and then many some extremely dubious claims like "much more likely" and give one anecdote of the best female player ever by a significant margin.
I mean, the 'anecdote' of Judit Polgar is very clear evidence that the gap in chess between men and women is (at least in potential) not as large, right? With regard to the vast majority of physical sports, you'd be laughed out of the room if you said you think a woman can reach top 10 in the world rankings (the only example I can think to the contrary is ultra marathon stuff). Yet this happened with chess.
For the record I think this argument is completely pointless. But using the only woman ever to reach the top ten, and one of three to ever make the top 100, as an example of how there isn’t a difference doesn’t make sense.
You need to look at distributions not outliers. It’s like finding the lowest ranked opponent ever to beat Carlsen and using the game where they beat him as an example of how there isn’t necessarily a large gap in skill between them.
It does make sense because the difference between Judit and the rest of the women doesn't rely on biology or the structure of brains but more on the background of upbringing . The argument here is not that there is no difference, the argument is that the difference is not necessarily strictly related to biology.
You mean the stuff where the fastest men are way faster than the fastest women?
RunRepeat's study analysed 5,010,730 results from 15,451 ultrarunning events over 23 years, concluding that the longer the race distance, the shorter the gender pace gap. At the 5K distance, men ran 17.9% faster than women, but at the marathon distance, this reduced to 11.1%. Over 100-mile races, men only had a 0.25% advantage, and for races above 195 miles, women were recorded as 0.6% faster than men.
Now tell me the fastest times ultra marathons have been run (wold records) and if they are male or female and the % difference between them in running time / distance (apparently runners like going for a set number of hours/days not just distance in time).
Yes, of course the difference is smaller percentage wise when the race is 10+ hours.
Which gender has all the records?
[removed]
The question is whether those different wirings are biologically innate, or if they're rather a product of the differing upbringings and experiences men and women tend to have. One Hungarian girl was raised more like a chess machine than a woman, and we know how that went.
So you don't have any evidence?
that's not a gotcha. he's saying/claiming that funding the research that could yield such evidence is highly unfashionable.
I don't know whether that's true or not, I just wanted to point that out because you're being glib in a way that's unhelpful to the discussion, even if it gets the cheap upvotes.
you can't gather the evidence when suggesting the possibility of a difference gets you canceled everywhere. wokeness is sometimes bad for science
Regardless of whether you think his specific views are true or not (I'm not picking a side here myself), they are not so obviously beyond the pale as to render him obviously a sexist. Sexism requires a specific prejudice or discrimination, which is not on its face present when the actual argument being made is one based on biological differences when clearly many biological differences do exist that explain differential outcomes in many other things.
No, he didn't. He pointed to established neuroscientific facts as plausible explanations. Pretty tame stuff.
The statistical differences he mentioned between men and women are facts and they are plausibly relevant to chess. Not sexist, just true.
Speaking of 'not scientific', here is a massive claim with no evidence behind it at all. Just a bare assertion.
Shorts sexism has been well known by the chess community for decades, stop pretending that you need a random redditor to convince you and open up google
I'm asking for evidence of sexism. It might exist, but this article isn't it.
The statistical differences are (at least to a very large degree) a function of the different sizes of the player pools. That is not to say that there couldn't be additional factors (genetic or otherwise) but to just assume that the observed difference is based in biological differences is pretty much text book sexism.
I mean, I can see the point from the guy above. Is he really making specific biological claims as to why men are better than women at chess (which of course we don't know if they are), or he is just claiming that there are biological differences, and somewhere in those differences there is something that makes men more likely to be better at chess?
He seems convinced that men are better at chess, which of course is not backed up by science, but I don't see him claiming any specific reason for this, just "differences". Of course it doesn't help that the differences he mentions are bullshit.
u wot m8? how is that not backed by science?
What do you mean? Obviously men have been better at chess at the top level historically. But that's because of society reasons not biological. Science does not say that men are better than women at chess.
Of course it's possible they could be, but there is no known reason that explains it
We don't know that and you recognize this with your last sentence, so why do you write it like this anyway?
See, I just dislike it when this topic gets "misrepresented".
Currently we know that males are better than females in chess at the top, this is fact. We know that this is heavily influenced by participation rate (about 1 female to 9 males, according to the FIDE list).
At the top there is a significant difference between participation rate aka normal representation and actual representation. For example, left handed players have about the same ratio, assuming nothing selects chess for one or the other, but they are evenly distributed at the top (f.e. Arjun Erigaisi and Hans Niemann = 2 in top 20)
We also know that there are differences in the brain between males and females.
We can't rule out that other societal factors play into the difference, so we have to keep an open mind in this regard and be open to valid explanations for one or the other.
This is science, if it turns out that indeed it is biological that's what it is no matter how much you don't like it, just like Nigel Short has to accept that it's not if other factors turn out to be more significant or he is a bellend (which he is anyway and that's very public).
But, the bottom line is we do not know. Therefore it is easy to conclude that science does not say that men are better at chess than women biologically, nor does it say that they aren't, it doesn't say anything with our current knowledge.
If short is wrong then there should not be women’s titles or tournaments
That’s a non-sequitur
...No? Women don't have separate events because they're biologically inferior. Women have separate events to encourage their participation. There are about a thousand societal pressures on girls that prevent them from becoming top level players, including the obvious. Women's titles and events are a means to counteract those.
If those events didn't exist the population of women interested in chess would drop even more significantly, and chess would be lesser as a result.
It is unfair for gender specific events to exist if that gender is not at a disadvantage against the other gender. It is also the soft bigotry of low expectations
Re read the comment above and try to understand how some of those things are disadvantages.
In what way do they make women worse at chess?
Is it worth noting the hilarious losing record of females against males in chess?
No, just Short for the irony
The "biological difference" there is literally just testosterone fwiw, which anyone can take
No, it isn’t lol. Women taking testosterone will still get destroyed in every sport by men. We can see that with Olympic women with high testosterone levels from drugs that are worse than elite junior high school boys…
Different bodies. Many bigger differences.
I think chess isn’t necessarily a case of that, but men and women have huge differences from their dna, to their anatomy, to their bone structure….
Yeah, no, your post is exactly what sexism looks like.
I mean it could definitely be wrong, but how is it sexist? Even if there are biological differences that give men an advantage in professional chess, that doesn't automatically make men superior to women. Chess is just an activity.
In fact, I think calling this sexist could actually be more problematic, since it implies that if these differences actually did exist, men would be 'superior' in general, which is clearly not true.
His claim is nonsense. It’s not based on fact, it’s based on a prejudicial understanding of the abilities of women.
You’re quietly shifting the goalposts from “is this sexist?” to “is this prejudiced?” - big difference.
By common use, sexism means asserting one sex is inferior or justifying unequal treatment; it covers stereotypes that enforce hierarchy. Short argued a biological explanation for why elite results skew male, which is a causal hypothesis about averages, not a direct claim that women are morally or intellectually inferior and/or should be treated worse.
If you think his claim rests on a prejudiced view of women, say which lines actually demean or deny women’s competence; if your standard for “sexist” is simply “controversial or wrong,” then that standard needs defending - cite a scholar who adopts it, because I’ve never seen it outside online takes.
Asserting that women are biologically worse at chess than men without any evidence seems like sexism to me. Lmao
There is some evidence. Whether that evidence is good or not is very debatable, but it's not just random speculation. Also, he's a chess professional who's played against/coached countless people over 4+ decades. By any objective standard (like that used in court testimony), his opinion itself would be considered expert evidence.
Disagreeing with the evidence or his conclusion doesn't mean he is being sexist. In fact, if you say his opinion is sexist, it's the same thing as saying that if women weren't equally good at chess then men really would be superior.
The simple answer is that you are not supposed to be wrong about some stuff. If you're not sure, you need to keep your mouth shut. (edit: maybe a better way to phrase it, is you need to keep your opinion to yourself)
You're overthinking it. In the end logic and rationality only matter if they are correct. Or at least the person made every conceivable effort to be correct.
Otherwise, the statement is judged based on the actual claim, not the reasoning used to justify it.
Saying that men are intrinsically more capable at a mental activity than women is sexist. The only exception is if you are actually right. Not just about the results but the claim that this is caused by biology. If you can't prove it, don't say it. It's not a difficult concept.
So it’s sexist to say there’s any difference between men and women mentally? What about all the proven mental differences between men and women, like neuroticism ? Sounds like you’re just scared to broach the topic that men and women in fact are different.
It's sexist to say men or women are better at something due to biological reasons without overwhelming evidence.
This is not the same as saying that there are differences between men and women. Like, they are so obviously different, that I cannot see how someone could conflate the two in good faith.
I don't follow. People figure things out by talking, and being wrong isn’t some moral disaster. Tying 'sexism' to whether a claim ends up true doesn't really make sense.
Just curious - are there any researchers or scholars who actually argue that a claim counts as sexist only if it’s wrong? I’ve never seen that outside of internet takes.
Saying there might be a biological angle in chess is the kind of hypothesis researchers explore all the time, and I don't see how treating it like a forbidden topic protects anyone, it just shuts the discussion down.
You don't need an academic to understand formal logic, lol.
A claim that inherently places one sex above another in value/skill must require an effort to be defensible, otherwise it is simply an assertion reflecting a cognitive bias.
It's like the reddit comments where someone says, "didnt watch the video/read the article, but I assume this is XYZ" - a comment without any argumentative value that reflects nothing more than the commentors willingness to jump to unfounded assumptions.
When those unfounded assumptions create a hierarchy of persons, they are often some form of -ist. When those arguments are defensible by some means, they are much more akin to the truth-seeking through talking that you mention.
Honestly, this whole post comes across as super disingenuous. It's not like Short was engaging in some unbiased scientific debate about the role of sex in chess performance. You trying to conflate these questions makes me question your motives.
You should read what he said. Recognizing clear differences in gaming ability, not intelligence or intrinsic worth, isn't sexist. Would you say the same if he said men were better than women in Esports? Football?
"I have explained the reasons and I stand by it. In a lot of countries, at undergrad level, women are doing better. But in chess, it is just not the case. We’re talking about a yawning chasm of abilities. You cannot massage this fact to put a spin on it. One of the problems, I think, rightly or wrongly, people equate chess with intelligence. It’s a proxy. This is what really bothers a lot of people... I’m not saying men are more intelligent. I’m saying we’re different. We have different skills."
https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/food/new-restaurants-openings-december-hyderabad-mumbai-delhi-ncr-bengaluru-11765427259305.html
Is it sexist to say men are physically stronger than women genetically now?
He made a racist comment towards Nemo on a livestream a few years ago. I don’t remember his exact quote but it was something like "Ching chong"
Weird coming from you. You made several racist comments here on Reddit yourself.
What? Can you show me a specific example?
I don’t remember
Brilliant
"I'm 12 years old"
What?
Racists are famous for their willingness to fly to Central African Republic to play a bunch of black African men at chess
Yeah, a racist would never ever want to get into a situation where they could display their racial superiority, true true ...
Sounds like a racists dream actually, so long as it's at an activity they're an expert at. I doubt he would have signed up to do something at which he might lose.
And he also whined so hard that Cheparinov didn't shake his hand
People are nuanced. If this is the standard you adopt, you're going to be the only person in heaven.
mad
Once an a#hole, always an a#hole.
The fact that he’s playing as white against all of them is so funny to me.
Pretty normal in simuls. Otherwise, the neighbour boards could simply mirror his moves, leading to a inevitable tied match result. Also, having the white pieces offers him more flexibility in his opening choices, leading to more variety.
No no I get all of that, it’s funny because he’s a white guy who flew to an African country to crush a bunch of black people in chess and is playing them as literally white v black. It’s optically a funny photo.
Ahh, I didn’t catch that at all. I thought you were (slightly) mocking him for needing the white pieces to win against amateurs which seemed unfair given how common it is.