"Women also turned out to be picky about the social prospects of potential mates."
when they can be, it's not always and everywhere been practicable to. SEXUAL SELECTION AND HUMAN GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION

"Female chimpanzees mate with all the adult males in their group when their sexual swellings appear signaling impending estrus. When they are likely to conceive, however, they disappear with a single high-quality consort male who will father their offspring".

I'd read that chimps have large testicles and assumed much of the reproductive competition is between the sperm. However after reading this I can see that high quality males must have special access, otherwise their qualities would be trumped by a sperm competition strategy (ie useless males with unfeasibly large testicles)

"evidence in support of the view that women are far choosier around the time of ovulation. In particular, during estrus women are more attracted to men with highly masculine faces"

"At no point in the cycle was the darker male face more popular than the lighter one. It was simply less often disliked during the estrogen-dominant phase".
Male skin color and ruddiness
Female brains and male skin tone*

If Thornhill and Gangestad are right one wonders about the women of sexually liberated countries who enter into relationships while taking oral contraceptives -

("women... taking oral contraceptives. Consequently, their hormonal state would have been analogous to that of women in the last third of the menstrual cycle (i.e., the infertile phase)." )*

Then they come off the pill to get pregnant and wonder to themselves 'how did I end up with such a loser' !

You write: "Female chimpanzees mate with all the adult males in their group when their sexual swellings appear signaling impending estrus. When they are likely to conceive, however, they disappear with a single high-quality consort male who will father their offspring."

I'm not sure if this is your take on chimp consortships or if you're just relaying what the authors state on the matter, but in either case, I believe the view is mistaken. The passage makes it seem that it is habitual for females to go off with a consort male when they are ovulating, when in fact, it's rather unusual. It's also been demonstrated that the consort males are often not the biological fathers of the female's young, and that the females most often do not go willingly, often returning to the group with injuries from the "high-quality consort male."

Well, I think this is largely a matter of semantics...

A signal trait of estrus is the lordosis reflex, in which the female spontaneously elevates her hindquarters and actively solicits the male (or males) to mate with her. Outside of estrus, females have no or little interest in males.

Estrus is also often characterized by obvious visual or other cues which make the female more attractive to males.

Neither of these occurs in human females. "There was no evidence in this study for a periovulatory increase in sexual attractiveness as occurs in other primates, because there was no evidence for an increase in male-initiated activity." (Susan B. Bullivant, et al: "Women's sexual experience during the menstrual cycle: identification of the sexual phase by noninvasive measurement of luteinizing hormone"; Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2004.)

Thus, one could sensibly argue that human females have indeed "lost estrus". Does that mean there aren't still some subtle, vestigial cues? No. But the point is that they are very subtle and rather difficult to detect without one being quite methodical - I mean, you wouldn't believe the lengths they had to go to in the study cited above to determine when ovulation occurred. By contrast, estrus is obvious.