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
True, and it doesn't hurt to wear a cup for protection
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
True, and it doesn't hurt to wear a cup for protection
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.
I paid $1500 for my bed and its like sleeping on a cloud...I don't care whats happening...I am sleeping in my bed...I told my wife my a long time ago....go ahead...beat the hell out of me....I'll just call the cops and you can sleep in jail and I'll sleep in my bed....I haven't had any trouble
Hmm I couldn't/wouldn't talk that way to my gf, my bark is worse than my bite. I do agree alot with her when she was here. A lot of guys on this site might think less of me to admitting that however.
Judit Polgar is a great example of a female genius
don't ever mention Judit Polgar to GM Korchnoi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxeiGipoFSE
In one of Roman Dzindziashvilli's videos, he mentions that Korchnoi hates losing and treats anybody who beats him as an enemy for some time afterwards, but not forever.
"Statistically speaking, there's no reason to suspect that women are inherently weaker than men in Chess."
What does this sentence even mean? "Statistically speaking" means you are going to talk about empirics. Then you end the sentence with "there's no reason to suspect that women are weaker than men in chess". Huh? Like maybe you can tack "statistically speaking" on the beginning of the sentence so that we believe the end of the sentence without any proof to back it up? Statistically speaking, there is tons of evidence that men are better at chess than women. Like for example, I have a huge plus record against the top 50 women in the US and a 0-fer record against the top-50 men. And that is one tiny small shred of an iota of a "statistically speaking" that is a huge mountain. So "statistically speaking", the second part of your sentence is at best a non-sequitor....
How many of the top fifty men and top fifty women have you played?
I'd like to bet the farm on the match "Fischer minus knight/ versus Polgar" His clock would be squeeky clean.
Fischer stayed with the Polgars in 1990 some time around the time of the second match he had against Spassky. They must have played some games. I wonder what is the score.
"Statistically speaking, there's no reason to suspect that women are inherently weaker than men in Chess."
What does this sentence even mean?
It means what it says -- if you actually look at the number of women players, their rating distribution, the number of male players and their rating distribution, then ask the question "do these distributions support the hypothesis that women are weaker chess players than men?" the answer you get is "no."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1659/1161.full
To quote from the paper: "This study demonstrates that the great discrepancy in the top performance of male and female chess players can be largely attributed to a simple statistical fact—more extreme values are found in larger populations. Once participation rates of men and women are controlled for, there is little left for biological, environmental, cultural or other factors to explain. This simple statistical fact is often overlooked by both laypeople and experts."
Bravo, KingPatzer. Great reference.
"I truely believe that men and women are equals is chess because it's not a physical game. "
How stylish of you. Did you base than on anything other than a belief that it must be that way in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?
Why is that women can be just as good as men at being an astronaut, or a naval ship commander, but if I say they're as good at chess as men people don't want to believe me.
I think something has been somewhat overlooked here, that I 'd like to point out. I started doing some research. I found that men have been playing chess since about 600 AD. While keeping track of its game results, they have built quite an impressive collection of data, for lines of play. I have noticed it is often credited to the predecessors of great players, for helping them to establish idioms, for being on the cutting edge of their sport. I believe it would be fair to say, that men have taught other men for over a millenium, how to play this game. I would say that this includes even how one must think, in order to succeed.
Women on the other hand, didn't really begin pioneering in this sport until the early 1900's, in much of a notable manner. I am sure that, due to all of our biases and predjudices, there has been a chasm in terms of men reaching out to women, beyond their initial appearance in the sport for the sharing of how to learn/think, as it is required to play this game well.
I would say that if there had always been equal opportunity for women, they would have closed the gap long ago in this sport. There still could certainly be a disparity between the number of men vs women that would choose to play, if the opportunities would have been equal. This, in and of itself, could have contributed to this difference too somewhat, either way. I don't really hold it against men, if they think that crocheting is an activity for women, even if that seems sexist. I have tried crocheting before, have fun ladies.
Don't get me wrong, a woman can pick up a theory book and read it, the same as any man could and try to apply it. However, have any of you considered the advantages of having a predecessor, you could relate to in first hand experience, " pass the mantle" on to you? Women have never really had this until the last 50 to 60 years, and it has been nothing compared to the opportunities that men have had. I am sure men haven't rushed to educate them, so that there is an equivalence in skill. So having reasoned all of this through, I'd say women do pretty darn well considering, they haven't had anyone at the top the sport, they could really relate to and connect with, teach them.
This is a priceless commodity. If you don't believe me, ask any champion at anything, who helped them get there, by helping them with mental preparation. I am willing to bet a few may have gotten there on raw talent, but the greats all had someone coaching them, they could really connect with mentally at some point.
As far as men vs women in non-chess, human terms go, we are the two intergal parts of humanity. I think it would be dumb to sit back and ask myself if the positive termal of a battery is superior to the negative...in a sense, this is what we do when we ask which of the two sexes is superior...
"I think it would be dumb to sit back ask myself if the positive termal of a battery is superior to the negative...in a sense, this is what we do when we ask which of the two sexes is superior..."
That was the conclusion to that diatribe.... Men and women are just the positive and negative terminals of a battery. I want my two minutes back.
Just be glad you didn't have to spend any money, if you didn't like it. Gee, people never look the bright side...
The bright side?
So someone posts a link to this paper that shows that participation rates in German chess are like 30 men to each woman and then says that this data "proves" that women are just as good as men at chess because if you don't believe that drop-out probabilities and chess skill are independent, you are a trogolodyte. And people cheer.
A few things wrong with this picture:
a) The "study" is using a really transparent trick and people are buying it. Often these studies are done by people who don't understand quantitative methods. This author does and he is deliberately trying to fool people. Ouch.
b) The difference in participation rates is a terrible problem. I play tons of chess and nobody includes me in those best of the world numbers. We want women playing chess because it is fun, fulfilling, and good for people.
c) The notion that you can claim to be "just as good" without actually doing makes my toes curl. Know how many people have claimed to me in their lives that they "could" run a 2:30 marathon so why bother to try? When I tell people that maybe they could but between running 1 mile at 6:30 and running 26 miles at 5:40 is a world of hurdles and experiences, they get mad at me. Same as here. "Women are just as good as men at chess" but doesn't need to be shown.
d) If you don't like the discussion, don't participate but posting these fatuous diatribes sucks.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Some people around here want you to ask yourselves, is reality actually reality.
It's a scam, don't buy a ticket to the "Great Escape". When the moment passes, you'll realize you got gypped and you are right back where you started.
The bright side?
So someone posts a link to this paper that shows that participation rates in German chess are like 30 men to each woman and then says that this data "proves" that women are just as good as men at chess because if you don't believe that drop-out probabilities and chess skill are independent, you are a trogolodyte. And people cheer.
A few things wrong with this picture:
a) The "study" is using a really transparent trick and people are buying it. Often these studies are done by people who don't understand quantitative methods. This author does and he is deliberately trying to fool people. Ouch.
b) The difference in participation rates is a terrible problem. I play tons of chess and nobody includes me in those best of the world numbers. We want women playing chess because it is fun, fulfilling, and good for people.
c) The notion that you can claim to be "just as good" without actually doing makes my toes curl. Know how many people have claimed to me in their lives that they "could" run a 2:30 marathon so why bother to try? When I tell people that maybe they could but between running 1 mile at 6:30 and running 26 miles at 5:40 is a world of hurdles and experiences, they get mad at me. Same as here. "Women are just as good as men at chess" but doesn't need to be shown.
d) If you don't like the discussion, don't participate but posting these fatuous diatribes sucks.
Yes but isn't it better to ignore scientific fact and be politically correct so that we can be "inclusive" and feel good about ourselves?? Aren't we sexist if we don't falsely claim that women and men are the same??
NOT!!!! The truth is what it is, regardless of P.C. bull!?XR
Ladies and Gentlemen, Some people around here want you to ask yourselves, is reality actually reality.
It's a scam, don't buy a ticket to the "Great Escape". When the moment passes, you'll realize you got gypped and you are right back where you started.
FYI - using a huge font and bright colors does not strengthen your rather weak and obscure arguments
It's feminism and all the "equality" garbage. The Declaration of Independence says we are all created "equal" which means we have equality under the law; feminists and other "oppressed" groups have taken this one word and misapplied it in millions of ways; WE MUST ALL BE "EQUAL" even though this is not possible or even desirable. Men are men and women are women, and this is a good thing. Equal rights under the law does not mean we are the same. Two things are equal if they are the same. Men and women are not the same. They are not equal, though they have equal rights under the law (actually, women now have MORE right than men under the law, a fact which is conveniently swept under the carpet).
@Joey I was simply saying that being an astronaut is an intense job that requires alertness and intelligence. Women can do this because they care to try, as far as chess goes, I think more women just decide it would take too long to become an expert and just decide they have better things to do.
two questions for everyone out there:
What would be definitive proof that women can play chess with men on a level playing field as equals?
What can we all do to encourage more women to play chess and thus changing and enriching the chess community for the better?
The best and only thing we can do is treat them as equals rather than condescending by creating special rating systems etc etc. I believe women have been treated as MORE than equals for a long time. I don't know of any man who has a problem with playing vs women. The problem is that there is this steel-trap knee-jerk accusation of sexism everytime a man opens his mouth. JUST PLAY CHESS. THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO DO. MAN, WOMAN, CHILD, OR OTHERWISE
I truely believe that men and women are equals is chess because it's not a physical game. To become a master of chess requires a ton of study and work(at least for normal people) and I think more men pursue that end than women do. If there was a way to get more women to scholastically pursue chess while keeping everything equal in terms of titles, I believe the chess community would benifit from this growth. There's also college scholarships available for chess, and I think colleges would jump at the chance to award this to a female.