Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Men VS Women!


  • 2 years ago · #201

    robotjazz

    Different is certainly a good thing, but when it comes to chess, we are on equal ground I believe

  • 2 years ago · #202

    Morris_W3

    I don't know.....women have been pushing me around the board for quite some time know.  I would like things to be a little more equal just for once maybe........somehow

  • 2 years ago · #203

    robotjazz

    do you mean that literally or are you talking about relationships? because all women seem to want a man that takes charge, but then they want us to act sensitive and caring. That's what confuses me the most about women, why do they act like they want to date a wimp and then turn around and need a strong man. I'll tell you why, they don't know what they really want, they only know what they want at a particular moment. Therefore, in order to satisfy a women you must be one or the other at any given time, or both at once. either way, it gets too exausting to play that game for too long, I'd rather just get into an arguement for not being what she wants me to be and then pretend to apologize afterward.

  • 2 years ago · #204

    Morris_W3

    When you understand women, then you will also understand chess.  Keep me updated on your progress.  As to your question "Do you mean that literally or just in relationships?" The answer is "yes."

  • 2 years ago · #205

    nameno1had

    robotjazz wrote:

    do you mean that literally or are you talking about relationships? because all women seem to want a man that takes charge, but then they want us to act sensitive and caring. That's what confuses me the most about women, why do they act like they want to date a wimp and then turn around and need a strong man. I'll tell you why, they don't know what they really want, they only know what they want at a particular moment. Therefore, in order to satisfy a women you must be one or the other at any given time, or both at once. either way, it gets too exausting to play that game for too long, I'd rather just get into an arguement for not being what she wants me to be and then pretend to apologize afterward.

    For me this is simply explained by the idea that, we all want want we want, and when and how we want it. My wife and I go around about double standards. She insists I have them and I ask what they are, I get no specific response. When I point out hers, she replies," you knew how I was when you married me". I tell her its no excuse and she says she doesn't care...

  • 2 years ago · #206

    robotjazz

    mfw019 wrote:

    When you understand women, then you will also understand chess.  Keep me updated on your progress.  As to your question "Do you mean that literally or just in relationships?" The answer is "yes."

    You sound like a wise zen master

    @nameno1had I know exactly what you mean and I'm not even married, and if you said the same thing to her"you knew how I was when you married me" she would probably be resentful of you saying that, but it's ok for her to say. women always want to take control, but as a man we are expected to take control, and if we didn't the woman would not respect us. I hope it doesn't take me as long to get better at chess as it will for me to understand what women want. An old friend of mine said something to me I'll never forget. He said

    "you can satisfy a woman...........for about two seconds." still makes me laugh

  • 2 years ago · #207

    nameno1had

    robotjazz wrote:
    mfw019 wrote:

    When you understand women, then you will also understand chess.  Keep me updated on your progress.  As to your question "Do you mean that literally or just in relationships?" The answer is "yes."

    You sound like a wise zen master

    @nameno1had I know exactly what you mean and I'm not even married, and if you said the same thing to her"you knew how I was when you married me" she would probably be resentful of you saying that, but it's ok for her to say. women always want to take control, but as a man we are expected to take control, and if we didn't the woman would not respect us. I hope it doesn't take me as long to get better at chess as it will for me to understand what women want. An old friend of mine said something to me I'll never forget. He said

    "you can satisfy a woman...........for about two seconds." still makes me laugh

    Don't sweat it, I think you have the hang of it. I told my wife she wants what she wants, but wants someone to help her to not make bad decisions. If I wasn't man enough to tell her no, she wouldn't respect me. She agrees. I told her she's right, I didn't want a door mat either. So that tells me, she even wants someone to fight with. So I just pretend to be. I find if I don't put my whole heart into the fight, it makes her think she wins. In some weird way at some point, they want dominated too though, but when the time is right. Sometimes I think my wife gets mad because I tend to let her be free, instead of really putting my foot down.When they can't predict you and put you in a box, it gets their attention and you are a challenge. They don't want a door mat either.

    I like some lyrics from a 38 special song that say a mouthful to me when it comes to dealing with women...

    hold on loosely, but dont let go, if you cling tightly, your gonna lose control...your baby needs someone to believe in and a whole lot of space to breath in, so hold on loosely...

  • 2 years ago · #208

    Morris_W3

    Boy, are you guys ever in trouble.SurprisedWinkLaughing

  • 2 years ago · #209

    nameno1had

    mfw019 wrote:

    Boy, are you guys ever in trouble.

    I am a big boy, I can except my spankins when they come...

  • 2 years ago · #210

    robotjazz

    I know as much about women as this little guy

  • 2 years ago · #211

    Morris_W3

    He's probably got us all beat.

  • 2 years ago · #212

    winerkleiner

    When it's comes to women just cave, let them win, they never forget.

  • 2 years ago · #213

    nameno1had

    winerkleiner wrote:

    When it's comes to women just cave, let them win, they never forget.

    I was going on in this thread earlier about the joy of letting them get the better of me...you might as well...otherwise there is no way for them to get the best of you either....hehehe

  • 2 years ago · #214

    winerkleiner

    nameno1had wrote:
    winerkleiner wrote:

    When it's comes to women just cave, let them win, they never forget.

    I was going on in this thread earlier about the joy of letting them get the better of me...you might as well...otherwise there is no way for them to get the best of you either....hehehe

    Yep they will either win anyways or get used to making the couch your bed.  I nod alot.

  • 2 years ago · #215

    AnnaZC

    chrisr2212 wrote:
    winerkleiner wrote:

    When it's comes to women just cave, let them win.

    Good idea, it will protect your ego... i mean look what happened to ciljettu after he got beat by a woman

    ok ok, this must be one of those "knock knock who's there" joke things

    alright, I give up, what happened to him after he got beat by a womanUndecided?

  • 2 years ago · #216

    robotjazz

  • 2 years ago · #217

    Natalini

    There are about 7 000 000 000 people on the earth, half of them are women. I dont think any one of us can decide if 3 500 000 000 people are good or bad at chess.

  • 2 years ago · #218

    PatriotScout

    Chess is traditionally a men's sport. Women were not always afforded the opportunity to play the game with an organized community. Personally I think that the seperation of circuits is good for the game. If they were allowed to compete against men they would not be able to achieve the same titles because there is a significantly larger male population. They would have to play more games against more hardened players and some of the WGM may not be able to gain the title otherwise.

    The seperation of the circuits was first done to encourage more women to start playing. It was at that time that women were still hesitant to leave the domestic sphere. The Women's circuit was basically an olive branch extended from the male chess community to women letting them know that they wanted them to join the chess community, but slowly. The division was never ended and it remains as the accepted tradition. I am in favor of the seperation, otherwise a lot of young female players would lose interest.

  • 2 years ago · #219

    Morris_W3

     

    The gender apartheid is the worst thing that could happen to women's chess. You can only improve in chess by playing against tougher opponents and women-only events discourage girls from doing this.

    The earlier you meet many players that can trash you to pieces, the better for your chess.

    I agree.  It's time to let women know that we know that they can stand on their own two feet.

  • 2 years ago · #220

    PatriotScout

    ciljettu wrote:
    PatriotScout wrote:

    Chess is traditionally a men's sport. Women were not always afforded the opportunity to play the game with an organized community. Personally I think that the seperation of circuits is good for the game. If they were allowed to compete against men they would not be able to achieve the same titles because there is a significantly larger male population. They would have to play more games against more hardened players and some of the WGM may not be able to gain the title otherwise.

    The seperation of the circuits was first done to encourage more women to start playing. It was at that time that women were still hesitant to leave the domestic sphere. The Women's circuit was basically an olive branch extended from the male chess community to women letting them know that they wanted them to join the chess community, but slowly. The division was never ended and it remains as the accepted tradition. I am in favor of the seperation, otherwise a lot of young female players would lose interest.

    The gender apartheid is the worst thing that could happen to women's chess. You can only improve in chess by playing against tougher opponents and women-only events discourage girls from doing this.

    The earlier you meet many players that can trash you to pieces, the better for your chess.

    I understand that you get better by playing strong players. I wouldn't even try to refute it. I merely point out that the seperation of men and women in chess developed out of early social norms. It has since been established as the accepted convention. I honestly do not see the abolition of this system anytime soon and am not interested in fighting for the change.

    This is not the biggest issue facing chess players (cheating is the #1 complaint) and will most likely never be considered a priority. Sure, a few people every now any then may get perturbed by it, but it will never be recognized as a legitimate issue. The majority of female players are comfortable with the system at this point.

    The seperation is in title only by the way. Women can play men to earn the same titles, but they are designated for women. A GM is just the same as a MGM -Men's Grand Master. It makes no difference what you call it, the titles have the same meaning. This really is a nonissue. If the top female players came out and made a fuss about it, I am sure something would be done. However, they do not make a fuss and as far as I can tell they do not care all that much. If anything, adding the W personalizes it. A lot of people can become GMs, but only a woman can become a WGM. 

    It is not about being better or worse than each other -mfw019- it is just a designation. They know that men recognize their ability. This is not some crusade that need be pursued on an online chess forum. If you have a REAL problem with it, take it up with FIDE. They are the ones can actually do something about it.


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.