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?Why is chess dominated by relatively young players?

Which act of Congress authorized the Ukrainian aid which was allegedly withheld?

Total I/O cost of a process

Musig Signature Interactivity

Completing the square to solve limit problems

Is current (November 2019) polling about Democrats lead over Trump trustworthy?

Why do some papers have so many co-authors?

What happened to Sophie in her last encounter with Arthur?

What is the "opposite" of a random variable?

Fitting a large equation with gathered in table cell

An historical mystery : Poincaré’s silence on Lebesgue integral and measure theory?

How to use FDE without needing to share the encryption password

Why rounding odd font sizes to even?

Can I request a credit item be removed from my report as soon as it is paid in full?

Should a middle class person emulate a very wealthy investor for % of cash hold?

Making Sandwiches

Why did the Bohr Model Successfully calculate some of the energy levels in hydrogen?

Surfacing out of a sunken ship/submarine - Survival Tips

Is it a good idea to contact a candidate?

Is policy routing bad?

Can I permanently banish a devil from one layer of the Hells to another using the Banishment spell?

Can we rotate symbols in LaTeX? How should we make this diagram?

How do I find the unknown program enabled during Start-Up?

I have stack-exchanged through my undergrad math program. Am I likely to succeed in Mathematics PhD programs?

Is it sportsmanlike to waste opponents' time by giving check at the end of the game?



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?Why is chess dominated by relatively young players?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








15

















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?










share|improve this question





















  • 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 S
    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

















15

















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?










share|improve this question





















  • 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 S
    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













15












15








15


3






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?










share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question














share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jul 18 at 15:07









Phemelo KhethoPhemelo Khetho

8342 gold badges6 silver badges18 bronze badges




8342 gold badges6 silver badges18 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 S
    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





    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 S
    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 S
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 S
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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















29


















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:



  1. Talent

  2. 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 :)






share|improve this answer























  • 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


















30


















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






share|improve this answer























  • 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












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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















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









29


















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:



  1. Talent

  2. 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 :)






share|improve this answer























  • 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















29


















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:



  1. Talent

  2. 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 :)






share|improve this answer























  • 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













29














29










29









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:



  1. Talent

  2. 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 :)






share|improve this answer
















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:



  1. Talent

  2. 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 :)







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Jul 21 at 14:09









Community

1




1










answered Jul 19 at 9:51









Dennis JaheruddinDennis Jaheruddin

4651 silver badge6 bronze badges




4651 silver badge6 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












  • 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













30


















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






share|improve this answer























  • 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















30


















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






share|improve this answer























  • 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













30














30










30









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






share|improve this answer
















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







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Jul 18 at 16:12









Brian Towers

25k4 gold badges56 silver badges114 bronze badges




25k4 gold badges56 silver badges114 bronze badges










answered Jul 18 at 15:12









DavidDavid

3,5608 silver badges17 bronze badges




3,5608 silver badges17 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












  • 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


















draft saved

draft discarded















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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









Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Where does the image of a data connector as a sharp metal spike originate from?Where does the concept of infected people turning into zombies only after death originate from?Where does the motif of a reanimated human head originate?Where did the notion that Dragons could speak originate?Where does the archetypal image of the 'Grey' alien come from?Where did the suffix '-Man' originate?Where does the notion of being injured or killed by an illusion originate?Where did the term “sophont” originate?Where does the trope of magic spells being driven by advanced technology originate from?Where did the term “the living impaired” originate?