|Women's World Championship (2018)|
The FIDE Women's World Chess Championship match between defending champion Tan Zhongyi and challenger Ju Wenjun was a 10 game match taking place May 3-18. Tan Zhongyi had won the Women's World Championship (2017), whereas Ju Wenjun qualified as challenger from the Grand Prix series ending at FIDE Women's Grand Prix Khanty-Mansiysk (2016). The first half of the match was in the Intercontinental Hotel Puxi, near the historic centre of Shanghai, May 3-9, after which the match moved to Chongqing for the remaining five games, May 12-18. The players received 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30-second increment from move one.
Official site: http://china2018.fide.com. FIDE page: https://www.fide.com/component/cont...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1 Ju Wenjun 2571 ½ 1 1 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 5½
2 Tan Zhongyi 2522 ½ 0 0 1 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 4½
Live games: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
| page 1 of 1; 10 games
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|May-19-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Possibly call this 'The Friendly Final'.
Ju does appear to have taken her foot off the gas in the last game. Possibly nerves. She spent a long time avoiding the clear win on moves (48-50).
The report says the two are great friends. ""The players are more than friends, almost like sisters."
Same link shows Ian Rogers tweet:
"Weird press conference after Ju Wenjun's win over Tan Zhongyi in the second game of the Women's World Chess Championship in Shanghai. Ju looked seriously depressed at having beaten her friend, "
game showing times:
Congratulations. Wins the World Title and keeps a very good friend. That is actually quite difficult to do.
|May-19-18|| ||MissScarlett: Call it the <Forgettable Final>. After all, it generated just eight pages of kibitzing, 90% of which involved discussing why women's chess is inferior. Throw in a couple of Orientals, and you have your explanation.|
|May-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Sokrates>
Good idea! One list for Wesley So and another list for the eh other players.
|May-19-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<alexmagnus> I didn't mean <average> rating, I mean <top> rating.>|
OK, but a few examples do not make a valid conclusion or prove a hypothesis. Anyone can come up with a few examples of whatever they are claiming to be the truth or supporting whatever point one wants to make. You either need to look at either the entire population of young boys and girls or a statistically valid sample selected at random to make a case one way or the other. And that begs the question; how do you define "worse"? Ratings? Performance in tournaments? Some combination of the two? Some other measures?
And, apropos possibly nothing, I did what I said I would do; calculate the <percentages> of active male and female players at different ages. Percentages are needed for the comparison because there are 9 times as many rated males as rated females. My thought was that if the % of rated female players at an early age was very high but then dropped steadily as they got older, that would indicate that females lost interest in chess as they aged. And, if the % of rated males at an early age was also very high and stabilized at a certain (lower) point as they got older, that would indicate that less males (proportionally) lost interest in chess as they got older and, because they had a longer active chess playing span, they had more chances to gain experience and get better than their female counterparts. Does this make sense or am I missing something?
Some of the results are interesting assuming, of course, that FIDE's data is reasonably correct. The youngest rated male is aged 4 and the youngest rated female is aged 6 (!). And the oldest rated male is 98 and the oldest rated female is 93 (!!). This is after filtering out players without a birth year and those whose birth date would make them more than several 100s of years old. :-)
The peak % of players for both genders occurred at age 14, about 3.6% for the males and 8.8% for the females, then they drop sharply. For the females the drop is pretty much monotonic (after smoothing) but for the males the percentage by age levels off at about age 25 and remains fairly flat for about 10 years and then it begins to increase, with a secondary peak at about age 53 followed by a gradual decline. That leads me to conclude that, for whatever reason, a higher percentage of males than females remain interested and active in the game as they age. And it is perhaps this continued interest in the game that allows males to achieve higher ratings than females.
And since a picture is worth 1000 words, you can download the chart (unsmoothed) from http://www.mediafire.com/file/o695q... and the smoothed version from http://www.mediafire.com/file/q8mjp.... You can also download the updated Excel spreadsheet with the charts from http://www.mediafire.com/file/hmp0l.... I deleted the tab containing the inactive players and split the male and female player data into different tabs to make the calculations easier.
Any thoughts and comments welcome and encouraged.
|May-19-18|| ||nok: <And since a picture is worth 1000 words,>|
I'm kinda glad you posted two pictures.
|May-20-18|| ||AylerKupp: <nok> I had to. Given my verbosity posting only one picture would not have been enough to overcome the word lead that the sum of my previous posts had.|
|May-20-18|| ||zanzibar: F = Gaussian with tail
M = Convolution of two gaussians
Looks like men are more likely to "rediscover" chess in their 50's then women.
Of course, this could just be due to a recent influx of young women into the game, so that we'd have to wait for them to age before we see could see a similar effect.
|May-20-18|| ||alexmagnus: AylerKupp, but as I said above, the top rates girls don't stop playing chess.
And you accuse me of bringing out single examples, but since we talk about <top> ratings, it's all that can be done.|
Note that there are no such single examples in the adulthood. Not even Judit Polgar.
|May-20-18|| ||alexmagnus: And those <top> girls don't stop playing chess.|
|May-20-18|| ||Octavia: <Ayler> what you said about statistics is very interesting, thanks! It used to be 1% women players. I'm glad it's gone up to 9.9% - but its still a long way to go for equality, isn't it? < their ratings distribution is much more skewed for the women than for the men... The skewness and kurtosis of their distributions reflect this.> I don't understand, could you elaborate, please?
I'm not surprised that the average women's grade is lower than the men's: If the majority of women perceive themselves as the underdog they won't perform as well as they could. However, there are 2 other reasons: 1) it is not true that the same number of boys & girls start out in chess clubs - it's much less girls. Sometimes some trainers have told me that they've got a lot of girls. When I enquired about the numbers it was never anywhere near 50%.<Alex> 2) I've played now for over 40 years. Every year I see one or two women join the fray. They get a grade & then disappear. Therefore these are the ones which keep our average grade low.
I'm only in the top half of my country because the grading officer - in his wisdom - gives children grades of one hundred! So, it's easy to be in the top half. The minimum grade should be 1400.|
|May-20-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<alexmagnus> but as I said above, the top rates girls don't stop playing chess. And you accuse me of bringing out single examples, but since we talk about <top> ratings, it's all that can be done.>|
But your original statement was that girls don't do worse than boys in chess in childhood. So I interpreted that as meaning that girls, in general, don't do worse than boys in chess in childhood. And I think that can only be shown by looking at averages an/or significant amounts of data.
You clarified that by saying that you didn't mean average rating, but top rating. The first statement seemed to me to be a generalization, and the second statement seemed to me just a citing of examples. So I don’t see any relationship between the two. For every field you can cite examples of superior performance by males and females, young and old, etc. And I don't see the significance of that; it's expected that through a combination of talent, work ethic, luck, etc. there will be some people of either sex and any age that will excel in their chosen field.
As far as Judit Polgar is concerned, she was born in 1976, became a grandmaster in 1991 at the age of 15, and achieved her peak rating of 2735 (ranked #8 in the world) in July-2005 at the age of 32. The later seems to me a good example of achieving your peak as an adult.
And we can never know what any, or even many, of those young girls that gave up chess might have achieved chess-wise if they had persevered in playing the game. To me the more interesting question, if indeed the apparent fact that percentage-wise more young girls than young boys give up chess is a factor in preventing more females from achieving top 100 ratings, is why they decided to give up chess competitively. If we knew that, then maybe something could be done about it.
|May-20-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Octavia> what you said about statistics is very interesting> (part 1 of 2)|
I don't think that the percentage of rated female players was ever near as low as 1%. The reason that I say that is that as part of my investigation on ratings inflation I have looked at every year-end FIDE rating list since they became official in 1970 and prior to that the unofficial lists generated by Dr. Elo in 1966 – 1969. You can download a summary of that spreadsheet from here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/o38vu... or the complete list from here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/3yczz...
But I'll save you the trouble and just give you the answer. The lowest female percentage of active rated players (other than an apparent aberration in the rating list in 1973, 0.1%) was 5.2% in 2006. And from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s it averaged around 16%.
As far as skewness and kurtosis those are just measures of how unbalanced a distribution is compared to the normal distribution, this you can clearly see in the figures. That was just a childish way of responding to your comment about "When there are a whole lot of people doing something, statistics come into it" since I know a little bit about statistics (it's becoming a hobby of mine) so that's like preaching to the choir, but you had no way of knowing that. I apologize. But then, as I suspect that you might agree, childishness is a typical male characteristic, and I'm no different. ;-)
As I mentioned to <alexmagnus> above, the data supports your observation that every year you see one or two women join the fray and then disappear. The data seems to indicate (I think) that more females than males (percentage-wise) seem to lose interest in chess as they get older, if you look at just the number of FIDE-rated players. But I don’t think that's unreasonable since only the most serious chess players, those that are the most likely to achieve high-level ratings, are likely to get FIDE ratings. However, percentage wise the number of male and female players is roughly the same for active and inactive players; 90.1% male/9.9% female for active players and 89.3% male/10.7% female for inactive players, so that doesn't seem to reflect the data.
If indeed it is true that females lose serious interest in chess than males as they get older, that might at least partly explain why there is a small percentage of women at the top of the rating charts. After all, we'll never know what those who dropped out of competitive chess might have achieved if they had persevered at the game. And, if loss of interest in the game is a major reason for that, then the question is what can be done about it. After all, chess-playing potential is a terrible thing to waste.
|May-20-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Octavia> what you said about statistics is very interesting> (part 2 of 2)|
I've updated the spreadsheets to save only the data for the active players and, to make it easier to calculate, created separate tabs for male and female players. And I also created a summary-only spreadsheet without the data. You can find them here:
2018-05 Standard_rating_list (active, by gender): http://www.mediafire.com/file/hmp0l...
2018-05 Standard_rating_list (active, by gender) - Summary: http://www.mediafire.com/file/1zy0b...
And, if you only want to look at the pictures (and to please <nok>), you can find the various charts here. After all, a picture is worth 1000 words although each of my words, because I have so many of them, are likely each worth a lot less than 1/1000 of a picture.
Number of Active Male Players by Rating Interval http://www.mediafire.com/file/czagm...
Number of Active Female Players by Rating Interval: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tu4t6...
Percentage of Active Players by Rating Interval: http://www.mediafire.com/file/qx434...
x (5-pt smoothing): http://www.mediafire.com/file/q8mjp...
|May-20-18|| ||Sokrates: <AylerKupp>
Just my humble and sincere thanks for your great, sometimes even educational posts. We are privileged to have such a knowledgable person in our midst, always creating objective and fair arguments instead of sliding into personal attacks.
|May-20-18|| ||zanzibar: It seems to me that there's a missing dimension to the analysis - i.e. how many years active.|
|May-20-18|| ||zanzibar: PS- <AK> I got some annoying pop-ups visiting your mediafire site (again)... including one phishing screen claiming my computer was infected with viruses by the last site visited (I didn't see that last time, but ROBLOX popped up again). |
Ever consider using Google Drive to host your files?
|May-20-18|| ||zanzibar: Oh, I forgot to mention "PrivacyPal by SearchLock", another popup... this one claiming to stop web trackers.|
|May-21-18|| ||Absentee: <zanzibar>
|May-21-18|| ||AylerKupp: <zanzibar> Sorry about that, I had no idea. I have an account there and, even though it's free, I don't get any ads or pop-ups, even when I click on my links to verify that they were set up correctly and that the files could be downloaded.|
I've looked at Google Drive and Google Docs over the years and I never liked the way they worked. But things change, so it's probably time that I looked at them again. But, like death and taxes, I'm afraid that adds and pop-ups on free sites are with us to stay. So, if Google Cloud doesn't have them today, they'll probably have them tomorrow.
|May-21-18|| ||AylerKupp: <Sokrates> Thanks for the very kind words. But, after all, there always has to be a rotten apple in a barrel. :-)|
|May-21-18|| ||AylerKupp: <zanzibar> Calculating the number of years active for each rated player is such an obvious thing to do that it's not a surprise that I didn't think of it. I'll try to do that once I figure out a way to do it efficiently in my ancient computer.|
However, my computer went down yesterday and I have to take it in to the shop today to have it fixed. So, depending on what's wrong with it, this might take me a while.
|May-21-18|| ||zanzibar: <AK> <Calculating the number of years active for each rated player is such an obvious thing to do that it's not a surprise that I didn't think of it. >|
This is a bit of a funny statement...
Good luck on your computer repair though.
(I could expound on the mediafire stuff, as <Absentee> implicitly suggested - I wasn't using Firefox at the time, I was using Chrome.
As for online storage, there's also dropbox which <hemy> likes to use - and I haven't seen it misbehaving like the mediafire underpops (their popups actually don't get focus, and like under your open window)).
|May-21-18|| ||zanzibar: <Absentee> thanks for the info - I used to run Firefox a lot more, but started using Chrome around the time they broke support of web developer addon.|
I do run it from time to time still though, including the noscript addon. The uBlock addon is new to me, thanks, I'll look at it a bit more...
|May-21-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<zanzibar> This is a bit of a funny statement... >|
What can I say? I try to be a funny guy as much as possible, as long as it's not (hopefully) in bad taste. Which, also unfortunately, a have a lot of.
But I got the worst news possible today, my c: drive is fried. It's not that big of a deal, I keep my data on my d: drive and after my last disk drive crash I back up both drives regularly. But I'll have to reload Windows, reload all my applications, and customize them all over again. It will just take time.
So my investigation on file sharing methods will have to take a back seat for a while.
I use Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Firefox for different purposes. I have an old machine running windows XP and this site shows up best under IE. I use Chrome mostly but Google stopped supporting XP some time ago and they're not updating it any longer, and some of the secure sites use a protocol that his old Chrome does not support. So, when I get that message I open up Firefox, copy and paste the url into it, and go. I would use Firefox all the time except that for some reason I can't get any videos to work, even though I keep it current. I hate computers or, more properly, stupid software developers who seem to lack common sense.
|May-22-18|| ||Octavia: < childishness is a typical male characteristic> I don't agree! I believe that males & females have the same characteristics except for sexual differences based on our physic. It's probably better if you stick to statistics ;)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC