I Believe the Women GM are underrated

[Chessqueen]

In the recent Candidate, Radjabov, Teimour ended 3rd among the best, but he lost to WGM Ju Wenjun
[pgn][Event "FTX Road to Miami Prelims 2022"]
[Site "Online"]
[Date "2022.07.04"]
[Round "4.4"]
[White "Radjabov, Teimour"]
[Black "Ju, Wenjun"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2560"]
[ECO "D38"]
[Opening "QGD"]
[Variation "Ragozin, 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6"]
[WhiteElo "2738"]
[TimeControl "60+20"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "106"]
[WhiteType "human"]
[BlackType "human"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. Qa4+ Nc6
8. e3 O-O 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Rc1 Qg6 {10...Rd8 is the hot move.} 11. Qb3
{D38: Queen's Gambit Declined: Ragozin Defence .} Rd8 12. a3 Ba5 {[#]} 13.
h4 {$0 $146 The position is equal.} {Predecessor:} (13. h3 a6 14. Qa2 Bxc3+
15. Rxc3 {½-½ (15) Dambrauskas,V (2220)-Brazdzionis,A (2317) Vilnius 2020})
13. .. Ne7 14. h5 Qf6 15. Qa4 Bb6 16. Bd3 c6 17. b4 Bf5 18. Qc2 Bxd3 19.
Qxd3 Nf5 20. b5 Re8 21. bxc6 bxc6 22. Kf1 Re6 23. Rh3 Rae8 {White must now
prevent ...Nxe3+!} 24. Ne5 {[#]} (24. Kg1 {$0 $11}) 24. .. Rxe5 (24. ..
Nxd4 {$1 $17 [%mdl 512]} 25. Nd7 (25. exd4 $2 Rxe5 26. Rf3 Qh4 {$0 $19})
25. .. Qd8 26. Nxb6 Nb3) 25. dxe5 {$0 $11} Rxe5 {aiming for ...Nxe3+.} 26.
Kg1 Qg5 {And now ...Nxe3! would win.} 27. Nd1 (27. Kh1 {$0 $11} Re8 28.
Rb1) 27. .. Re6 {$1 $15} 28. Rb1 Nh4 {0x0.00207e0ab36ddp-1022s more active
pieces. The white rooks are badly placed.} 29. Rg3 (29. Qf1 {$1 $15 was
preferrable.}) 29. .. Qxh5 {$0 $17} 30. Rb4 (30. Rh3 {$0 $17}) 30. .. Nf5
(30. .. c5 {$0 $19} 31. Rb5 Nf5) 31. Rf3 Ne7 (31. .. Nd6 {$0 $17} 32. Rh3
Qg5) 32. Rh3 Qe5 33. Rb1 Ng6 34. Nb2 c5 35. Na4 c4 36. Qd1 Bc7 {Black
should play} (36. .. Ne7 {$0 $17}) 37. Rc1 (37. f4 {$1 $11 keeps the
balance.} Qd6 38. f5 Rxe3 39. Rxe3 Qh2+ 40. Kf2 Qh4+ 41. Kf1 Qh1+ 42. Kf2
Qh4+ 43. g3 Qh2+ 44. Kf1 Qh1+ 45. Kf2 Qh2+ 46. Kf1 Qh1+ 47. Kf2 Qh2+) 37.
.. Ne7 $1 38. Nc3 Rg6 39. Rh5 Rg5 {Better is} (39. .. f5 {$1 $17}) 40. Rxg5
{$0 $11} Qh2+ 41. Kf1 hxg5 42. Ne2 $2 {Much weaker is} (42. Nxd5 42. ..
Nxd5 43. Rxc4 Nb6 {$0 $17}) (42. Rb1 {$0 $11}) 42. .. Qh1+ {$0 $19} 43. Ng1
Bh2 44. Ke2 Qxg2 45. Nf3 {[#]} g4 $1 46. Nxh2 Qxh2 {$0 $17 Endgame KQR-KQN}
47. Qg1 {[#] Prevents g3.} Qh5 48. Qh1 (48. Qg3 {$0 $17}) 48. .. Qf5
{Threatens to win with ...g3!} 49. Rd1 g6 {Strongly threatening ...c3.} 50.
Rd4 {$2 $19} (50. Qh2 {$0 $17}) 50. .. Kg7 51. Qg2 $2 (51. a4) 51. .. c3
{$0 $19 Black is clearly winning.} {Worse is} (51. .. Qc2+ 52. Rd2 Qf5 53.
Qg3 {$0 $19}) 52. Rd1 Qc2+ 53. Ke1 Qb2 {Weighted Error Value: (very
precise)} 0-1[/pgn]

[CornfedForever]

One game does not a decent theory make.

Besides, as long as top level Women chose to play primarily in their closed (women's only) circuit...it is hard to prove anything.

You do realize after day 1 she has 1 win...and 3 losses (Radjabov has 1 draw and 3 losses) ? He may be a bit tired.

Besides, it's a rapid 15 min (10 sec increment) tourney ...which randomizes the play and thus the results. A more serious time control match would like result in a lopsided result for Radjabov.

[AndrewGrant]

Besides, as long as top level Women chose to play primarily in their closed (women's only) circuit...it is hard to prove anything.

My understanding is that the women who can achieve a GM title do so rather than settle for WGM. I'm certain that if there were female players able to compete at the level of the top N men, they would. Just so happens that, for whatever reason, men have larger tails on the chess playing distribution. More extremely good men than extremely good women -- but also more extremely bad men than extremely bad women, even though I presume the medians are equal and the distributions nicely overlap for the majority of both populations.

[CornfedForever]

Besides, as long as top level Women chose to play primarily in their closed (women's only) circuit...it is hard to prove anything.

I'm certain that if there were female players able to compete at the level of the top N men, they would.

I've thought about this a lot...and am not so sure. Yes, some would simply because some will want to test themselves.

However, to 'earn a living' as a player one has to be in a pool where they are comparatively better than most of the other players...because everyone can't earn a living playing chess. As long as there is effectively a 'womens circuit', there is no incentive for these better players to wade waist deep into a larger pool where bigger sharks trying to get their meal as well. When in the prime of their chess (playing) life...unless you have benefactors, it makes sense on a human level...and fodder for people to debate on chess forums

It's a catch-22 as concerns discussion of men vs women in chess. Neither 'good' or 'bad' strictly speaking I suppose.

[AndrewGrant]

Besides, as long as top level Women chose to play primarily in their closed (women's only) circuit...it is hard to prove anything.

I'm certain that if there were female players able to compete at the level of the top N men, they would.

I've thought about this a lot...and am not so sure. Yes, some would simply because some will want to test themselves.

However, to 'earn a living' as a player one has to be in a pool where they are comparatively better than most of the other players...because everyone can't earn a living playing chess. As long as there is effectively a 'womens circuit', there is no incentive for these better players to wade waist deep into a larger pool where bigger sharks trying to get their meal as well. When in the prime of their chess (playing) life...unless you have benefactors, it makes sense on a human level...and fodder for people to debate on chess forums

It's a catch-22 as concerns discussion of men vs women in chess. Neither 'good' or 'bad' strictly speaking I suppose.

You do make a good point about monetary incentives.

On the other hand, whats stopping a player from competing in the women's events, and also jumping into the chesscom events, the lichess events, and other online venues?

[CornfedForever]

Besides, as long as top level Women chose to play primarily in their closed (women's only) circuit...it is hard to prove anything.

I'm certain that if there were female players able to compete at the level of the top N men, they would.

I've thought about this a lot...and am not so sure. Yes, some would simply because some will want to test themselves.

However, to 'earn a living' as a player one has to be in a pool where they are comparatively better than most of the other players...because everyone can't earn a living playing chess. As long as there is effectively a 'womens circuit', there is no incentive for these better players to wade waist deep into a larger pool where bigger sharks trying to get their meal as well. When in the prime of their chess (playing) life...unless you have benefactors, it makes sense on a human level...and fodder for people to debate on chess forums

It's a catch-22 as concerns discussion of men vs women in chess. Neither 'good' or 'bad' strictly speaking I suppose.

You do make a good point about monetary incentives.

On the other hand, whats stopping a player from competing in the women's events, and also jumping into the chesscom events, the lichess events, and other online venues?

First...I'm only talking serious time control, OTB chess as I alluded to above.

But to your question...I can only guess:
1. They are not going to make any $$ in them....perhaps an appearance fee (?)
2. Their results against the top male players will make them look bad.
3. The organizers only allot...what maybe 2 spots for the ladies IF women are invited. I saw one 'chessable' type tourney a few months ago where two (?) women were invited. It was some convoluted scoring system. Neither made it out of the first round. I think one...maybe both were World Champions...one for sure. It wasn't pretty.

The world is very 'PC' these days. But...I could not help but wonder about the Carissa Yip invite to play in the US Junior Championship being played right now. Yip is again playing...but this time a mysterious, untitled young 2130 player is getting an invite. Why him? So she will not finish at the bottom again? It's the conspiratorial part of my brain that is asking...I'm not really wondering why SHE got the invite. I'm wondering why HE got the invite.

And I notice she - an IM and former (current I believe) US Women's Champion....lost to said 2130 a few moments ago and sits in last place. She played a 'Reversed Hippo' in a serious time control game...and got suitably trashed. 2 draws out of 5 games at the moment. People (I would hope) can be free to draw conclusions without being called 'sexist' and such. I'm not drawing any...just yet. At the moment, I am only wandering out loud.

[CornfedForever]

Too late to edit, but I find that Pedro got the invite by winning the US Junior Open. And he's rated 2091.

[Chessqueen]

One game does not a decent theory make.

Besides, as long as top level Women chose to play primarily in their closed (women's only) circuit...it is hard to prove anything.

You do realize after day 1 she has 1 win...and 3 losses (Radjabov has 1 draw and 3 losses) ? He may be a bit tired.

Besides, it's a rapid 15 min (10 sec increment) tourney ...which randomizes the play and thus the results. A more serious time control match would like result in a lopsided result for Radjabov.

She ended up on top of shankland and Radjabov, two GREAT Male chessplayers, both rated around 50 and 80 points above her
https://en.chessbase.com/post/ftx-miami-2022-d4

[CornfedForever]

She ended up on top of shankland and Radjabov, two GREAT Male chessplayers, both rated around 50 and 80 points above her
https://en.chessbase.com/post/ftx-miami-2022-d4

Uh...you do know that Radjabov was ill and withdrew after round 5 so all those 'goose-eggs' you point to are beyond misleading.

It's almost like you think winning a game equates with 'underrated'. I've beaten and drawn several IM/GM's online...and beaten (and drawn) several times against people rated several hundred rating points above me OTB (thru IM...not played many GM's). It in no way means I am "overrated". You seem to be suffering from some sort of 'confirmation bias'.

A win here and there in a non-standard TC or format really means nothing outside that individual game. So, you are free to believe as you wish...but don't put too much 'faith' in said belief. As I am fond of saying, at the heart of Believe or Beliefs we will often find a 'lie'.