Why are there few or no black super GMs?What is it about Magnus Carlsen?The thin line between winning and losing at the top level?Why do Super GMs still have to write down their moves at tournaments?Apart from practices in chessWhy is chess dominated by relatively young players?Why do top GM's “retire” from chess?Is it racist that white pieces move first in a chess game?
Does Wolfram Mathworld make a mistake describing a discrete probability distribution with a probability density function?
Did the Americans trade destroyers in the "destroyer deal" that they would later need themselves?
What is this 4 sharp symbol and what does it mean?
Does Dispel Magic destroy Artificer Turrets?
Anti-cheating: should there be a limit to a number of toilet breaks per game per player?
Is there an antonym(a complementary antonym) for "spicy" or "hot" regarding food (I DO NOT mean "seasoned" but "hot")?
How did the Axis intend to hold the Caucasus?
Irreducible factors of primitive permutation group representation
What do I do with a party that is much stronger than their level?
Why did Windows 95 crash the whole system but newer Windows only crashed programs?
What would the United Kingdom's "optimal" Brexit deal look like?
Can I change the license of a forked project to the MIT if the license of the parent project has changed from the GPL to the MIT?
Why is the Apollo LEM ladder so far from the ground?
How do I access the checkbox field column value as a PHP array?
What happens when a flying sword is killed?
Finding the Maximum of a Continuous Function over a Closed Interval
Wand of the War Mage spellcasting focus and bonus interaction with multiclassing
(3 of 11: Akari) What is Pyramid Cult's Favorite Car?
Why isn't there any 9.5 digit multimeter or higher?
Summoning A Technology Based Demon
How can I kill my goat?
How likely is fragmentation on a table with 40000 products likely to affect performance
Telling manager project isn't worth the effort?
Desktop app status bar: Notification vs error message
Why are there few or no black super GMs?
What is it about Magnus Carlsen?The thin line between winning and losing at the top level?Why do Super GMs still have to write down their moves at tournaments?Apart from practices in chessWhy is chess dominated by relatively young players?Why do top GM's “retire” from chess?Is it racist that white pieces move first in a chess game?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
In the history of FIDE chess competitions or rankings, why hasn't there been a black super GM (2750+ elo)? What could be the hindrance or what is it that the black players are not doing right that other players from other races are doing right in chess?
super-grandmaster
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
|
show 2 more comments
In the history of FIDE chess competitions or rankings, why hasn't there been a black super GM (2750+ elo)? What could be the hindrance or what is it that the black players are not doing right that other players from other races are doing right in chess?
super-grandmaster
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
27
It's complicated. The correct answer will be long and complicated. (Also I don't think that you should have accepted the sole answer to your question so quickly). Consider socio-economic factors. Consider similar questions, eg: "why are there so few women in STEM?", "why are actors mainly rich kids?". Ask yourself how a chess GM manages to support themselves, how can they afford to eat when being a chess GM doesn't pay a salary. Your answer will lie in inequality inherent in the world.
– Aaron F
Jul 19 at 8:06
1
@AaronF I came up with an answer that is quite long, but hopefully not too complicated ;-)
– Dennis Jaheruddin
Jul 19 at 9:53
4
Another similar question: "Why are there so few non-Asian Go professionals?"
– ahiijny
Jul 19 at 15:20
1
@ahiijny but there is a critical difference blacks make up a reasonable portion of US/Canada for many generations while whites have (at least before 1950s) not been any reasonable portion of Asian societies and of course go is almost nonexistent in Western culture and I might be wrong about this but isn't a good chunk of the western go pros of asian descent at least have their parents from Asia and thus have a decent amount of Asian culture
– Hao Sun
Jul 21 at 4:32
1
Chess is historically an Indo-European game, mostly played by Europeans (and in India). Minorities in European countries will be under-represented in chess because they are minorities - they are under-represented in the main population where chess is primarily played at very high levels. A similar question might be why there are so few white Mancala players.
– J...
Jul 21 at 12:27
|
show 2 more comments
In the history of FIDE chess competitions or rankings, why hasn't there been a black super GM (2750+ elo)? What could be the hindrance or what is it that the black players are not doing right that other players from other races are doing right in chess?
super-grandmaster
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
In the history of FIDE chess competitions or rankings, why hasn't there been a black super GM (2750+ elo)? What could be the hindrance or what is it that the black players are not doing right that other players from other races are doing right in chess?
super-grandmaster
super-grandmaster
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 15:07
Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
4491 gold badge3 silver badges10 bronze badges
27
It's complicated. The correct answer will be long and complicated. (Also I don't think that you should have accepted the sole answer to your question so quickly). Consider socio-economic factors. Consider similar questions, eg: "why are there so few women in STEM?", "why are actors mainly rich kids?". Ask yourself how a chess GM manages to support themselves, how can they afford to eat when being a chess GM doesn't pay a salary. Your answer will lie in inequality inherent in the world.
– Aaron F
Jul 19 at 8:06
1
@AaronF I came up with an answer that is quite long, but hopefully not too complicated ;-)
– Dennis Jaheruddin
Jul 19 at 9:53
4
Another similar question: "Why are there so few non-Asian Go professionals?"
– ahiijny
Jul 19 at 15:20
1
@ahiijny but there is a critical difference blacks make up a reasonable portion of US/Canada for many generations while whites have (at least before 1950s) not been any reasonable portion of Asian societies and of course go is almost nonexistent in Western culture and I might be wrong about this but isn't a good chunk of the western go pros of asian descent at least have their parents from Asia and thus have a decent amount of Asian culture
– Hao Sun
Jul 21 at 4:32
1
Chess is historically an Indo-European game, mostly played by Europeans (and in India). Minorities in European countries will be under-represented in chess because they are minorities - they are under-represented in the main population where chess is primarily played at very high levels. A similar question might be why there are so few white Mancala players.
– J...
Jul 21 at 12:27
|
show 2 more comments
27
It's complicated. The correct answer will be long and complicated. (Also I don't think that you should have accepted the sole answer to your question so quickly). Consider socio-economic factors. Consider similar questions, eg: "why are there so few women in STEM?", "why are actors mainly rich kids?". Ask yourself how a chess GM manages to support themselves, how can they afford to eat when being a chess GM doesn't pay a salary. Your answer will lie in inequality inherent in the world.
– Aaron F
Jul 19 at 8:06
1
@AaronF I came up with an answer that is quite long, but hopefully not too complicated ;-)
– Dennis Jaheruddin
Jul 19 at 9:53
4
Another similar question: "Why are there so few non-Asian Go professionals?"
– ahiijny
Jul 19 at 15:20
1
@ahiijny but there is a critical difference blacks make up a reasonable portion of US/Canada for many generations while whites have (at least before 1950s) not been any reasonable portion of Asian societies and of course go is almost nonexistent in Western culture and I might be wrong about this but isn't a good chunk of the western go pros of asian descent at least have their parents from Asia and thus have a decent amount of Asian culture
– Hao Sun
Jul 21 at 4:32
1
Chess is historically an Indo-European game, mostly played by Europeans (and in India). Minorities in European countries will be under-represented in chess because they are minorities - they are under-represented in the main population where chess is primarily played at very high levels. A similar question might be why there are so few white Mancala players.
– J...
Jul 21 at 12:27
27
27
It's complicated. The correct answer will be long and complicated. (Also I don't think that you should have accepted the sole answer to your question so quickly). Consider socio-economic factors. Consider similar questions, eg: "why are there so few women in STEM?", "why are actors mainly rich kids?". Ask yourself how a chess GM manages to support themselves, how can they afford to eat when being a chess GM doesn't pay a salary. Your answer will lie in inequality inherent in the world.
– Aaron F
Jul 19 at 8:06
It's complicated. The correct answer will be long and complicated. (Also I don't think that you should have accepted the sole answer to your question so quickly). Consider socio-economic factors. Consider similar questions, eg: "why are there so few women in STEM?", "why are actors mainly rich kids?". Ask yourself how a chess GM manages to support themselves, how can they afford to eat when being a chess GM doesn't pay a salary. Your answer will lie in inequality inherent in the world.
– Aaron F
Jul 19 at 8:06
1
1
@AaronF I came up with an answer that is quite long, but hopefully not too complicated ;-)
– Dennis Jaheruddin
Jul 19 at 9:53
@AaronF I came up with an answer that is quite long, but hopefully not too complicated ;-)
– Dennis Jaheruddin
Jul 19 at 9:53
4
4
Another similar question: "Why are there so few non-Asian Go professionals?"
– ahiijny
Jul 19 at 15:20
Another similar question: "Why are there so few non-Asian Go professionals?"
– ahiijny
Jul 19 at 15:20
1
1
@ahiijny but there is a critical difference blacks make up a reasonable portion of US/Canada for many generations while whites have (at least before 1950s) not been any reasonable portion of Asian societies and of course go is almost nonexistent in Western culture and I might be wrong about this but isn't a good chunk of the western go pros of asian descent at least have their parents from Asia and thus have a decent amount of Asian culture
– Hao Sun
Jul 21 at 4:32
@ahiijny but there is a critical difference blacks make up a reasonable portion of US/Canada for many generations while whites have (at least before 1950s) not been any reasonable portion of Asian societies and of course go is almost nonexistent in Western culture and I might be wrong about this but isn't a good chunk of the western go pros of asian descent at least have their parents from Asia and thus have a decent amount of Asian culture
– Hao Sun
Jul 21 at 4:32
1
1
Chess is historically an Indo-European game, mostly played by Europeans (and in India). Minorities in European countries will be under-represented in chess because they are minorities - they are under-represented in the main population where chess is primarily played at very high levels. A similar question might be why there are so few white Mancala players.
– J...
Jul 21 at 12:27
Chess is historically an Indo-European game, mostly played by Europeans (and in India). Minorities in European countries will be under-represented in chess because they are minorities - they are under-represented in the main population where chess is primarily played at very high levels. A similar question might be why there are so few white Mancala players.
– J...
Jul 21 at 12:27
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The number of players was already mentioned. But lets go one level deeper than that.
There are two driving factors in the chance that a player becomes a top player:
- Talent
- Education
And once you know the chance that someone becomes a top player, you can multiply this with the number of players. Which depends on the population and chance of someone playing.
A very simplistic formula might be:
Expected number of top players = Population size * likelihood to play
* likelihood to have enough chess talent * likelihood to have enough chess education
Now, let's look into each of the factors:
Likelihood to have enough chess education
This is both cultural and economical.
Beginner level: The more people play chess, the more likely you have access to someone who can explain you the rules, and teach you how to play
Intermediate level: If more people play, you are more likely to find suitable opponents to develop against. If the local economy is better, it is more likely that you can afford basic training materials or have the chance to play/study online. A combination of economy and player density will determine if you are able to play many tournaments.
Advanced level: At this point training will require a serious investment of time and money that not everyone can make. Logistics are slightly easier if there are several strong tournaments nearby, but you will still expect to travel international. Also don't underestimate the fact that you will likely not be able to work (or at least less) outside chess if you want to climb to the top.
Likelihood to play
Once a sport is popular, it is much more likely to be picked up by new people. A clear example can be found in the Netherlands, where the sport got really booming for decades after Max Euwe became the world champion. Not only will this lead to more players, it will often also lead to more facilitating infrastructure/clubs which may encourage people to play.
Likelihood to have enough chess talent
There are plenty of controversial statements that could be made here, but I think it is fairly safe to say that starting with general education and calculation/reading skills have a positive impact on chess talent coming out.
Population size
More people leads to more potential players.
Conclusion
The reason why there are less Black top players, is because the population in general has a lower average likelihood to become one. For people in less faverable circumstances the answer so far should already explain things clearly. For other people (e.g. those in the US) I think the main reason is that they have a reduced likelihood to become a player. If earlier generations did not play themselves, and there are no past champions to inspire you, that will slow down adoption.
That being said, as education and economical development increases across the globe, I think we just need one black world champion of a few top players in general before we start seeing many black players grow to the top :)
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
5
This should be the correct answer. Upvoted!
– Jossie Calderon
Jul 20 at 0:22
This was a very insightful answer.
– Isac
Jul 22 at 9:50
add a comment |
I would say the main reason here is the low proportion of black players. If you look at statistics from the 20th century, you will find very few top players from Asia. But as chess became more popular in countries like China, now there are plenty of Asian super GMs.
I guess something similar will happen to still underrepresented races
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
3
Are there a lot of chess players from Norway?
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:20
6
Quite a few of them compared to its total population! But the boom is quite recent, so that's why there's only been one Norwegian top player. Compare it with the number of Russian players
– David
Jul 19 at 7:23
1
quite a few is not really a 'scientific' measure. Also nowhere in the question it was asked about a comparison to a total population, so even if you are right (which I doubt) I do not see how is this relevant.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:30
2
OK: Let's be a bit more clear and forget the "population sizes". Take all of chess history. Russia has clearly outperformed Norway, which in term has outperformed Nigeria. There's been a ton of Russian players, a bunch of them from Norway, and almost none from Nigeria. Of course I am not being "scientific" as I don't have the exact data. By the way, at no point have I claimed to be so. Please present us your better explanation
– David
Jul 19 at 7:35
5
I don't have data: this is my main point. You took a very complex system concluded that the main reason behind the behavior of this system is hidden in a single number. You have not done anything to back this up. And it is very easy to show a counter example (BTW, there are 8 NOR players above 2500, and ~25 who are above 2400. Anyway, clearly not only 1 top player). My point is that this is a complex problem which probably can't be reduced to a one line/one number explanation and probably the reason is a combination of many many factors.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:52
|
show 12 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "435"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f24919%2fwhy-are-there-few-or-no-black-super-gms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The number of players was already mentioned. But lets go one level deeper than that.
There are two driving factors in the chance that a player becomes a top player:
- Talent
- Education
And once you know the chance that someone becomes a top player, you can multiply this with the number of players. Which depends on the population and chance of someone playing.
A very simplistic formula might be:
Expected number of top players = Population size * likelihood to play
* likelihood to have enough chess talent * likelihood to have enough chess education
Now, let's look into each of the factors:
Likelihood to have enough chess education
This is both cultural and economical.
Beginner level: The more people play chess, the more likely you have access to someone who can explain you the rules, and teach you how to play
Intermediate level: If more people play, you are more likely to find suitable opponents to develop against. If the local economy is better, it is more likely that you can afford basic training materials or have the chance to play/study online. A combination of economy and player density will determine if you are able to play many tournaments.
Advanced level: At this point training will require a serious investment of time and money that not everyone can make. Logistics are slightly easier if there are several strong tournaments nearby, but you will still expect to travel international. Also don't underestimate the fact that you will likely not be able to work (or at least less) outside chess if you want to climb to the top.
Likelihood to play
Once a sport is popular, it is much more likely to be picked up by new people. A clear example can be found in the Netherlands, where the sport got really booming for decades after Max Euwe became the world champion. Not only will this lead to more players, it will often also lead to more facilitating infrastructure/clubs which may encourage people to play.
Likelihood to have enough chess talent
There are plenty of controversial statements that could be made here, but I think it is fairly safe to say that starting with general education and calculation/reading skills have a positive impact on chess talent coming out.
Population size
More people leads to more potential players.
Conclusion
The reason why there are less Black top players, is because the population in general has a lower average likelihood to become one. For people in less faverable circumstances the answer so far should already explain things clearly. For other people (e.g. those in the US) I think the main reason is that they have a reduced likelihood to become a player. If earlier generations did not play themselves, and there are no past champions to inspire you, that will slow down adoption.
That being said, as education and economical development increases across the globe, I think we just need one black world champion of a few top players in general before we start seeing many black players grow to the top :)
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
5
This should be the correct answer. Upvoted!
– Jossie Calderon
Jul 20 at 0:22
This was a very insightful answer.
– Isac
Jul 22 at 9:50
add a comment |
The number of players was already mentioned. But lets go one level deeper than that.
There are two driving factors in the chance that a player becomes a top player:
- Talent
- Education
And once you know the chance that someone becomes a top player, you can multiply this with the number of players. Which depends on the population and chance of someone playing.
A very simplistic formula might be:
Expected number of top players = Population size * likelihood to play
* likelihood to have enough chess talent * likelihood to have enough chess education
Now, let's look into each of the factors:
Likelihood to have enough chess education
This is both cultural and economical.
Beginner level: The more people play chess, the more likely you have access to someone who can explain you the rules, and teach you how to play
Intermediate level: If more people play, you are more likely to find suitable opponents to develop against. If the local economy is better, it is more likely that you can afford basic training materials or have the chance to play/study online. A combination of economy and player density will determine if you are able to play many tournaments.
Advanced level: At this point training will require a serious investment of time and money that not everyone can make. Logistics are slightly easier if there are several strong tournaments nearby, but you will still expect to travel international. Also don't underestimate the fact that you will likely not be able to work (or at least less) outside chess if you want to climb to the top.
Likelihood to play
Once a sport is popular, it is much more likely to be picked up by new people. A clear example can be found in the Netherlands, where the sport got really booming for decades after Max Euwe became the world champion. Not only will this lead to more players, it will often also lead to more facilitating infrastructure/clubs which may encourage people to play.
Likelihood to have enough chess talent
There are plenty of controversial statements that could be made here, but I think it is fairly safe to say that starting with general education and calculation/reading skills have a positive impact on chess talent coming out.
Population size
More people leads to more potential players.
Conclusion
The reason why there are less Black top players, is because the population in general has a lower average likelihood to become one. For people in less faverable circumstances the answer so far should already explain things clearly. For other people (e.g. those in the US) I think the main reason is that they have a reduced likelihood to become a player. If earlier generations did not play themselves, and there are no past champions to inspire you, that will slow down adoption.
That being said, as education and economical development increases across the globe, I think we just need one black world champion of a few top players in general before we start seeing many black players grow to the top :)
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
5
This should be the correct answer. Upvoted!
– Jossie Calderon
Jul 20 at 0:22
This was a very insightful answer.
– Isac
Jul 22 at 9:50
add a comment |
The number of players was already mentioned. But lets go one level deeper than that.
There are two driving factors in the chance that a player becomes a top player:
- Talent
- Education
And once you know the chance that someone becomes a top player, you can multiply this with the number of players. Which depends on the population and chance of someone playing.
A very simplistic formula might be:
Expected number of top players = Population size * likelihood to play
* likelihood to have enough chess talent * likelihood to have enough chess education
Now, let's look into each of the factors:
Likelihood to have enough chess education
This is both cultural and economical.
Beginner level: The more people play chess, the more likely you have access to someone who can explain you the rules, and teach you how to play
Intermediate level: If more people play, you are more likely to find suitable opponents to develop against. If the local economy is better, it is more likely that you can afford basic training materials or have the chance to play/study online. A combination of economy and player density will determine if you are able to play many tournaments.
Advanced level: At this point training will require a serious investment of time and money that not everyone can make. Logistics are slightly easier if there are several strong tournaments nearby, but you will still expect to travel international. Also don't underestimate the fact that you will likely not be able to work (or at least less) outside chess if you want to climb to the top.
Likelihood to play
Once a sport is popular, it is much more likely to be picked up by new people. A clear example can be found in the Netherlands, where the sport got really booming for decades after Max Euwe became the world champion. Not only will this lead to more players, it will often also lead to more facilitating infrastructure/clubs which may encourage people to play.
Likelihood to have enough chess talent
There are plenty of controversial statements that could be made here, but I think it is fairly safe to say that starting with general education and calculation/reading skills have a positive impact on chess talent coming out.
Population size
More people leads to more potential players.
Conclusion
The reason why there are less Black top players, is because the population in general has a lower average likelihood to become one. For people in less faverable circumstances the answer so far should already explain things clearly. For other people (e.g. those in the US) I think the main reason is that they have a reduced likelihood to become a player. If earlier generations did not play themselves, and there are no past champions to inspire you, that will slow down adoption.
That being said, as education and economical development increases across the globe, I think we just need one black world champion of a few top players in general before we start seeing many black players grow to the top :)
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
The number of players was already mentioned. But lets go one level deeper than that.
There are two driving factors in the chance that a player becomes a top player:
- Talent
- Education
And once you know the chance that someone becomes a top player, you can multiply this with the number of players. Which depends on the population and chance of someone playing.
A very simplistic formula might be:
Expected number of top players = Population size * likelihood to play
* likelihood to have enough chess talent * likelihood to have enough chess education
Now, let's look into each of the factors:
Likelihood to have enough chess education
This is both cultural and economical.
Beginner level: The more people play chess, the more likely you have access to someone who can explain you the rules, and teach you how to play
Intermediate level: If more people play, you are more likely to find suitable opponents to develop against. If the local economy is better, it is more likely that you can afford basic training materials or have the chance to play/study online. A combination of economy and player density will determine if you are able to play many tournaments.
Advanced level: At this point training will require a serious investment of time and money that not everyone can make. Logistics are slightly easier if there are several strong tournaments nearby, but you will still expect to travel international. Also don't underestimate the fact that you will likely not be able to work (or at least less) outside chess if you want to climb to the top.
Likelihood to play
Once a sport is popular, it is much more likely to be picked up by new people. A clear example can be found in the Netherlands, where the sport got really booming for decades after Max Euwe became the world champion. Not only will this lead to more players, it will often also lead to more facilitating infrastructure/clubs which may encourage people to play.
Likelihood to have enough chess talent
There are plenty of controversial statements that could be made here, but I think it is fairly safe to say that starting with general education and calculation/reading skills have a positive impact on chess talent coming out.
Population size
More people leads to more potential players.
Conclusion
The reason why there are less Black top players, is because the population in general has a lower average likelihood to become one. For people in less faverable circumstances the answer so far should already explain things clearly. For other people (e.g. those in the US) I think the main reason is that they have a reduced likelihood to become a player. If earlier generations did not play themselves, and there are no past champions to inspire you, that will slow down adoption.
That being said, as education and economical development increases across the globe, I think we just need one black world champion of a few top players in general before we start seeing many black players grow to the top :)
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
edited Jul 21 at 14:09
Community♦
1
1
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
answered Jul 19 at 9:51
Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
4461 silver badge4 bronze badges
5
This should be the correct answer. Upvoted!
– Jossie Calderon
Jul 20 at 0:22
This was a very insightful answer.
– Isac
Jul 22 at 9:50
add a comment |
5
This should be the correct answer. Upvoted!
– Jossie Calderon
Jul 20 at 0:22
This was a very insightful answer.
– Isac
Jul 22 at 9:50
5
5
This should be the correct answer. Upvoted!
– Jossie Calderon
Jul 20 at 0:22
This should be the correct answer. Upvoted!
– Jossie Calderon
Jul 20 at 0:22
This was a very insightful answer.
– Isac
Jul 22 at 9:50
This was a very insightful answer.
– Isac
Jul 22 at 9:50
add a comment |
I would say the main reason here is the low proportion of black players. If you look at statistics from the 20th century, you will find very few top players from Asia. But as chess became more popular in countries like China, now there are plenty of Asian super GMs.
I guess something similar will happen to still underrepresented races
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
3
Are there a lot of chess players from Norway?
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:20
6
Quite a few of them compared to its total population! But the boom is quite recent, so that's why there's only been one Norwegian top player. Compare it with the number of Russian players
– David
Jul 19 at 7:23
1
quite a few is not really a 'scientific' measure. Also nowhere in the question it was asked about a comparison to a total population, so even if you are right (which I doubt) I do not see how is this relevant.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:30
2
OK: Let's be a bit more clear and forget the "population sizes". Take all of chess history. Russia has clearly outperformed Norway, which in term has outperformed Nigeria. There's been a ton of Russian players, a bunch of them from Norway, and almost none from Nigeria. Of course I am not being "scientific" as I don't have the exact data. By the way, at no point have I claimed to be so. Please present us your better explanation
– David
Jul 19 at 7:35
5
I don't have data: this is my main point. You took a very complex system concluded that the main reason behind the behavior of this system is hidden in a single number. You have not done anything to back this up. And it is very easy to show a counter example (BTW, there are 8 NOR players above 2500, and ~25 who are above 2400. Anyway, clearly not only 1 top player). My point is that this is a complex problem which probably can't be reduced to a one line/one number explanation and probably the reason is a combination of many many factors.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:52
|
show 12 more comments
I would say the main reason here is the low proportion of black players. If you look at statistics from the 20th century, you will find very few top players from Asia. But as chess became more popular in countries like China, now there are plenty of Asian super GMs.
I guess something similar will happen to still underrepresented races
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
3
Are there a lot of chess players from Norway?
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:20
6
Quite a few of them compared to its total population! But the boom is quite recent, so that's why there's only been one Norwegian top player. Compare it with the number of Russian players
– David
Jul 19 at 7:23
1
quite a few is not really a 'scientific' measure. Also nowhere in the question it was asked about a comparison to a total population, so even if you are right (which I doubt) I do not see how is this relevant.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:30
2
OK: Let's be a bit more clear and forget the "population sizes". Take all of chess history. Russia has clearly outperformed Norway, which in term has outperformed Nigeria. There's been a ton of Russian players, a bunch of them from Norway, and almost none from Nigeria. Of course I am not being "scientific" as I don't have the exact data. By the way, at no point have I claimed to be so. Please present us your better explanation
– David
Jul 19 at 7:35
5
I don't have data: this is my main point. You took a very complex system concluded that the main reason behind the behavior of this system is hidden in a single number. You have not done anything to back this up. And it is very easy to show a counter example (BTW, there are 8 NOR players above 2500, and ~25 who are above 2400. Anyway, clearly not only 1 top player). My point is that this is a complex problem which probably can't be reduced to a one line/one number explanation and probably the reason is a combination of many many factors.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:52
|
show 12 more comments
I would say the main reason here is the low proportion of black players. If you look at statistics from the 20th century, you will find very few top players from Asia. But as chess became more popular in countries like China, now there are plenty of Asian super GMs.
I guess something similar will happen to still underrepresented races
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
I would say the main reason here is the low proportion of black players. If you look at statistics from the 20th century, you will find very few top players from Asia. But as chess became more popular in countries like China, now there are plenty of Asian super GMs.
I guess something similar will happen to still underrepresented races
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
edited Jul 18 at 16:12
Brian Towers♦
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
20.3k3 gold badges37 silver badges89 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
DavidDavid
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
2,0805 silver badges13 bronze badges
3
Are there a lot of chess players from Norway?
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:20
6
Quite a few of them compared to its total population! But the boom is quite recent, so that's why there's only been one Norwegian top player. Compare it with the number of Russian players
– David
Jul 19 at 7:23
1
quite a few is not really a 'scientific' measure. Also nowhere in the question it was asked about a comparison to a total population, so even if you are right (which I doubt) I do not see how is this relevant.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:30
2
OK: Let's be a bit more clear and forget the "population sizes". Take all of chess history. Russia has clearly outperformed Norway, which in term has outperformed Nigeria. There's been a ton of Russian players, a bunch of them from Norway, and almost none from Nigeria. Of course I am not being "scientific" as I don't have the exact data. By the way, at no point have I claimed to be so. Please present us your better explanation
– David
Jul 19 at 7:35
5
I don't have data: this is my main point. You took a very complex system concluded that the main reason behind the behavior of this system is hidden in a single number. You have not done anything to back this up. And it is very easy to show a counter example (BTW, there are 8 NOR players above 2500, and ~25 who are above 2400. Anyway, clearly not only 1 top player). My point is that this is a complex problem which probably can't be reduced to a one line/one number explanation and probably the reason is a combination of many many factors.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:52
|
show 12 more comments
3
Are there a lot of chess players from Norway?
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:20
6
Quite a few of them compared to its total population! But the boom is quite recent, so that's why there's only been one Norwegian top player. Compare it with the number of Russian players
– David
Jul 19 at 7:23
1
quite a few is not really a 'scientific' measure. Also nowhere in the question it was asked about a comparison to a total population, so even if you are right (which I doubt) I do not see how is this relevant.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:30
2
OK: Let's be a bit more clear and forget the "population sizes". Take all of chess history. Russia has clearly outperformed Norway, which in term has outperformed Nigeria. There's been a ton of Russian players, a bunch of them from Norway, and almost none from Nigeria. Of course I am not being "scientific" as I don't have the exact data. By the way, at no point have I claimed to be so. Please present us your better explanation
– David
Jul 19 at 7:35
5
I don't have data: this is my main point. You took a very complex system concluded that the main reason behind the behavior of this system is hidden in a single number. You have not done anything to back this up. And it is very easy to show a counter example (BTW, there are 8 NOR players above 2500, and ~25 who are above 2400. Anyway, clearly not only 1 top player). My point is that this is a complex problem which probably can't be reduced to a one line/one number explanation and probably the reason is a combination of many many factors.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:52
3
3
Are there a lot of chess players from Norway?
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:20
Are there a lot of chess players from Norway?
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:20
6
6
Quite a few of them compared to its total population! But the boom is quite recent, so that's why there's only been one Norwegian top player. Compare it with the number of Russian players
– David
Jul 19 at 7:23
Quite a few of them compared to its total population! But the boom is quite recent, so that's why there's only been one Norwegian top player. Compare it with the number of Russian players
– David
Jul 19 at 7:23
1
1
quite a few is not really a 'scientific' measure. Also nowhere in the question it was asked about a comparison to a total population, so even if you are right (which I doubt) I do not see how is this relevant.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:30
quite a few is not really a 'scientific' measure. Also nowhere in the question it was asked about a comparison to a total population, so even if you are right (which I doubt) I do not see how is this relevant.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:30
2
2
OK: Let's be a bit more clear and forget the "population sizes". Take all of chess history. Russia has clearly outperformed Norway, which in term has outperformed Nigeria. There's been a ton of Russian players, a bunch of them from Norway, and almost none from Nigeria. Of course I am not being "scientific" as I don't have the exact data. By the way, at no point have I claimed to be so. Please present us your better explanation
– David
Jul 19 at 7:35
OK: Let's be a bit more clear and forget the "population sizes". Take all of chess history. Russia has clearly outperformed Norway, which in term has outperformed Nigeria. There's been a ton of Russian players, a bunch of them from Norway, and almost none from Nigeria. Of course I am not being "scientific" as I don't have the exact data. By the way, at no point have I claimed to be so. Please present us your better explanation
– David
Jul 19 at 7:35
5
5
I don't have data: this is my main point. You took a very complex system concluded that the main reason behind the behavior of this system is hidden in a single number. You have not done anything to back this up. And it is very easy to show a counter example (BTW, there are 8 NOR players above 2500, and ~25 who are above 2400. Anyway, clearly not only 1 top player). My point is that this is a complex problem which probably can't be reduced to a one line/one number explanation and probably the reason is a combination of many many factors.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:52
I don't have data: this is my main point. You took a very complex system concluded that the main reason behind the behavior of this system is hidden in a single number. You have not done anything to back this up. And it is very easy to show a counter example (BTW, there are 8 NOR players above 2500, and ~25 who are above 2400. Anyway, clearly not only 1 top player). My point is that this is a complex problem which probably can't be reduced to a one line/one number explanation and probably the reason is a combination of many many factors.
– Salvador Dali
Jul 19 at 7:52
|
show 12 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f24919%2fwhy-are-there-few-or-no-black-super-gms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
27
It's complicated. The correct answer will be long and complicated. (Also I don't think that you should have accepted the sole answer to your question so quickly). Consider socio-economic factors. Consider similar questions, eg: "why are there so few women in STEM?", "why are actors mainly rich kids?". Ask yourself how a chess GM manages to support themselves, how can they afford to eat when being a chess GM doesn't pay a salary. Your answer will lie in inequality inherent in the world.
– Aaron F
Jul 19 at 8:06
1
@AaronF I came up with an answer that is quite long, but hopefully not too complicated ;-)
– Dennis Jaheruddin
Jul 19 at 9:53
4
Another similar question: "Why are there so few non-Asian Go professionals?"
– ahiijny
Jul 19 at 15:20
1
@ahiijny but there is a critical difference blacks make up a reasonable portion of US/Canada for many generations while whites have (at least before 1950s) not been any reasonable portion of Asian societies and of course go is almost nonexistent in Western culture and I might be wrong about this but isn't a good chunk of the western go pros of asian descent at least have their parents from Asia and thus have a decent amount of Asian culture
– Hao Sun
Jul 21 at 4:32
1
Chess is historically an Indo-European game, mostly played by Europeans (and in India). Minorities in European countries will be under-represented in chess because they are minorities - they are under-represented in the main population where chess is primarily played at very high levels. A similar question might be why there are so few white Mancala players.
– J...
Jul 21 at 12:27