I don’t think it works like this. When you are talking highly stratified activity, you often find that this stratification doesn’t scale linearly. If there were 20:1, we might have been lucky to actually have found that there are two in the top ranks. Quite often, in areas like this…you find that the minority outliers are pretty much tokens and skew the results. We’d have to get much higher than 20:1 (or whatever the real number is) and see how things scale to get a real read. I think the better choice would be to look at estimated percentages around the median of women vs. men, not at the high end.
That said, I kinda do think women are hardwired not to be better chess players. Mostly because it is a rare exception to find women engaged in pointless pursuits that do nothing to promote humanity, that focus on made up rules, to solve a problem that didn’t need to be solved, and could be better done by computers.
