Chess, in fact, provides one of the clearest refutations of the Equality Cult dogma that men and women are identical except anatomically.
Generally, two main excuses are given for the disparity in male and female achievement in almost all spheres.
1) Women are denied access to the induction/training process that ultimately leads on to great achievement.
So women may not be taken on as apprentices by the great master painter, or are not inducted into the “old boys’ network” in some profession. Denied knowledge of the “tricks of the trade”, they can never equal the achievements of men.
2) Women do actually achieve on a par with men, but their achievement is not recognised.
This argument expects us to believe that, throughout history and still today, there have been a host of great female poets, composers, painters, etc. who remained completely obscure because prejudiced men refused to recognise their achievements.
Neither of these arguments can apply in the case of chess, however.
Great chess players are generally self-taught. They learn by studying old matches. They don’t sit as young paduwans at the feet of some grandmaster who shows them all the tricks.
This refutes argument 1.
And chess competitions are generally open. There is an objective ranking system based on results and there are tournaments where anyone above a certain rank can turn up and take on a grandmaster. The grandmaster will walk round the room, making moves quickly, playing dozens of people at once. If some female chess genius appeared, she could turn up, beat a grandmaster and make a name for herself. There is absolutely no way that prejudiced men would be able to prevent her abilities being recognised.
This refutes argument 2.
We’re left with the conclusion that men and women are actually different from one another. Men are better at some things and women are better at others.