Statistically less women play chess and therefore statistically there are less stonger female players.......so what, I don't really care if I'm playing a male or female.
If those women who want equality so badly insist on it, then get rid of separation in world title events and have the same level for all titles that players obtain.
Anyway, a lot of people on chess.com and anywhere else use the Darwin argument in place of the religion argument when what they really mean is "Chess is boy stuff....cooking is girl stuff....boy good at chess, girl make food."
Yes, outmoded sexist claptrap like this is what keeps men from becoming successful chefs.
Jovanka would wupp that pansy Nigel
Girls do so have the brains to play chess!!! I"me a girl myself. Just because chess is geared towards boys doesn't mean girls can't play it! I beat boys every day. Girls are just as smart as boys, (Or smarter!) And I am insulted that you would think that! Girls can like boyish things and boys can like girlish things, and you'll be sorry when some female becomes the first ever FEMALE world champion! I am insulted and so should the 1000,000000 woman/girls in the world!!!
Alison is right. Even bishops here in Spain (probably the most bigoted and narrow-minded all around the world) use to quote supposed biological "laws" in order to condemn homosexuality for example, since they realize this could get into more people than their traditional nonsense. The truth, however, is they don't have a clue what are they talking about, and that biology doesn't give a damn about that matter.
N. Short never said that! :p
Short responded on Twitter... "you seem to suffer from incomprehension. Men and women do have different brains. Furthermore, I never said women have inferior brains, that is your crude and false attempt to caricature me."
N. Short never said that! :p
I was referring to attempts to misquote biological science; they are everywhere.
Women are lucky , when people say " Girls just don´t have brain... don´t have the talent of men ...." they find more easily the motivation to prove her talent
As if there are no better motivations than this sexist shit... :pppppppp
Hmmm, didn't Nigel Short win the Upper Class Twit Of The Year award on multiple occasions?
Statistically less women play chess and therefore statistically there are less stonger female players.......so what, I don't really care if I'm playing a male or female.
If those women who want equality so badly insist on it, then get rid of separation in world title events and have the same level for all titles that players obtain.
Actually, statistically - that is, adjusted for participation differences - women perform worse than men. In other words, with the current average level of play among both genders, women would still perform worse than men even if there were an equal number of players from both sexes. This makes it practically impossible for there ever to be a female world champion, disregarding a drastic change in world order that would benefit the chess development of female players; this is the reason why it's important to maintain separate tournaments and titles for women, to allow them to reach fruition for their efforts at their own level. Just like with physical sports.
Girls do so have the brains to play chess!!! I"me a girl myself. Just because chess is geared towards boys doesn't mean girls can't play it! I beat boys every day. Girls are just as smart as boys, (Or smarter!) And I am insulted that you would think that! Girls can like boyish things and boys can like girlish things, and you'll be sorry when some female becomes the first ever FEMALE world champion! I am insulted and so should the 1000,000000 woman/girls in the world!!!
At your level, it may seem so. The statistical gender performance gap is quite small (~100 rating points for registered FIDE players), which means that an average woman will beat an average man once every three games. Furthermore, at layman levels, there are so many players that the effective ratings become intermixed, and a female chess enthusiast may very well perform better than many of the casual male players she encounters.
The difference is most obvious at the very top level, which of course comprises the most publicized pool of players and thus has the greatest impact on public perception. Within the range of the top 100 FIDE rating points are currently 20 players (40 players if you don't include Magnus Carlsen), all of whom are male. It is therefore extremely unlikely that any prestigious tournament featuring the world's top players, including the world championship, would feature a female player. This did happen years ago with Judit Polgar, but she was at the time overshadowed by Garry Kasparov, who was (not coincidentally) always about 100 points her superior. They were both statistical outliers, much like Magnus Carlsen is now.
Please keep in mind that it is not an insult if there are average differences between the sexes. This is in fact widely accepted for differences perceived as "physical" (as opposed to "mental", as if the brain weren't a physical organ). But when the differences are small, individuals can always transcend statistics.
Statistically less women play chess and therefore statistically there are less stonger female players.......so what, I don't really care if I'm playing a male or female.
If those women who want equality so badly insist on it, then get rid of separation in world title events and have the same level for all titles that players obtain.
Actually, statistically - that is, adjusted for participation differences - women perform worse than men. In other words, with the current average level of play among both genders, women would still perform worse than men even if there were an equal number of players from both sexes. This makes it practically impossible for there ever to be a female world champion, disregarding a drastic change in world order that would benefit the chess development of female players; this is the reason why it's important to maintain separate tournaments and titles for women, to allow them to reach fruition for their efforts at their own level. Just like with physical sports.
So basically your saying we should reward women simply because they are women. Sure, I can understand it in most sports. If men and women teams were put together, either someone would get HURT or they wouldn't be PLAYING at their BEST. In chess this is irrelevant. No one would get hurt because their playing chess and as far as playing at their best, if you lose because of your hormones you deserve the loss. Chess is an intellectual game and just because some/many/most (choose one) women don't play well doesn't mean we should segregate the genders. Hell some/many/most (choose one) men don't play well.
You can't possibly say anything about a group of people being different than another in any way because all groups are lies and all people are singular and unique. The generalisation can't be true because there is always an exception. Also maybe in the future when things are more fair women will win at chess more than men. Who knows?
"All groups are lies"? Do you mean that it's impossible to group people according to common characteristics? That if one group of people separated from another group of people hundreds of thousands of years ago, and evolved in complete genetic isolation for all that time, you cannot see this isolation in, say, skin color?
What about different species? How did they come about, if not evolving in groups that were genetically isolated from other groups?