Childish Gambini

 https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/why-are-the-best-chess-players-men.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

 "The idea that innate chess ability is critical for success—rather than a commitment to studying the game to get better and better at it—might itself keep the participation gap wide in the first place."

Does chess really require that much study?  I, personally, would have to study the game profusely if I were to play it and actually be any good at it, and that's pretty much why I've never played it.  I don't like games anyway, but in social settings like school, where I was encouraged to play games, chess was never the object.
I would think if I were inclined to give a rat's ass about gaming, and was blindly curious enough about such random b.s., that I could study the game and learn how to play it.  But -- and maybe the answer is different than I'm thinking -- does it really require ongoing study once you've figured out how to play it?
I know there are exceptions in all archtypes.  There are going to be women who have more body strength than the average man.  There are going to be men who have less body strength than the average woman.  There are going to be 2 year olds that can read.  There are going to be 20 year olds that can't read.  There are going to be homeless people who choose to be homeless.  There are going to be welfare recipients that can & sometimes even do have OK paying jobs.  There's going to be sunny days where rain doesn't dim the sky at all.  People will surprise you at every turn if you meet enough of them and get to know them well enough.  

  And I don't condone insults, slurs etc., nor do I wish to minimize their odiousness but this article seems to be suggesting that there's something innately wrong with the explanation of biology for win advantages predominant in the chess world.  And I'm sure an amateur chess player does get better at the game as they keep playing it.  But there surely comes a point where one is simply no longer in amateur and you're as good as you're going to get unless the game itself changes...  I mean, people use that logic when evaluating a bands' debut album and it happens to be kind of sub par, not really hitting all the right spots etc., all the while ignoring the countless LEGENDARY albums that were made by a band who had no prior output.  AUGUST AND EVERYTHING AFTER by Counting Crows, CRACKED REAR VIEW by Hootie & The Blowfish, APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION by Guns N' Roses, just 3 that immediately come to mind.  Sure, there are bands/artists who get better with age.  Especially bands who get signed and start recording and distributing at a young age and whose members haven't been playing the guitar since they were 8.  I was reading part of this book titled OUR BAND COULD BE YOUR LIFE, and the first section of the book was writing about The Misfits or some similar band.  The guy in The Misfits was essentially am amatuer.  But on the other hand, his amateur-ness was both the bands' claim to fame and the cause for their obscurity.  Nobody likes shit music, but those that do prefer it being dispensed by the likes of The Misfits.

 
I could be way off in my estimations.  I'm sure there is some injustice going on that makes female chess pros less likely to beat a male opponent, thus putting them at a lower rank.  But is every female chess pro the kind of person that shrivels up when faced with animosity?  The odds of a female chess player coming in at No. 1, or even No. 3, based on the data I've read within this very article, seems highly unlikely.  You can't blame all of that on hateful speech and venomous auras.  And what is this about social and economic factors?  Child care is a possible factor in some cases, but really?

" The best female player has always been ranked substantially lower than the best male player and would probably lose to him in a match."

If you tweaked all the data to eliminate the burden of finding or providing child care, took all the hostility out of the equation, by what margin would fact change, ultimately?  There could, in theory, be a championship chess player who might be a female but doesn't exist because she's not a pro and wouldn't want to be, given the hateful attitude directed at female chess players.  I'd say the same is true with men.  I'm sure amazing chess players of all archtypes have refused to go pro for various reasons.  For one thing, there's probably a fee for entering and it's probably not some measily $10 or something.  Then there's things like mental illness and, you know, there are men out there who just aren't interested in competing on a national level regardless of how talented they are.  Stage fright is kind of a mental illness, although it's such a common phobia, it's generally not met with the kind of stigma that schizophrenia or autism is.