Ruth Haring: 'Girls are bad at chess'

Interesting that you like to feel superior and laugh when people apparently don't understand things :)

The reality, of course, is that I did understand your point. It's just that people might not want themselves compared to something non-human, so I still didn't like your choice of example. I am just wondering why, as in my previous post, people can't just appreciate each other, both non chess players appreciating chess players, and chess players appreciating non chess players, for their respective merits.

There are plenty of very talented women who play chess.  Most of the time nobody hears about them because they're not at the top of the world.  In my eyes, a woman who is 2400+ FIDE is just as good as a 2700+ FIDE rated man.  Sure, there may be a 300 point difference, but most of those women will mop the floor with anybody here, and some of them are incredibly talented in bullet/blitz.  There are a number of strong women who play quite frequently on ICC.  Hisakoa2012 is perhaps the strongest woman I've seen on there.

Maybe you should read the whole thread before you post in it. Participation rates were debunked, on page 2 as I recall.

No, a woman who has a FIDE rating of 2400 is just as good as a man who has a FIDE rating of 2400. When evolved in the same pool of players, ratings are completely independent of gender. It's just that the distribution of female ratings peaks at about 100 points lower than the distribution of male players. This only matters at the very top, where there are a number of male players around the 2800 mark and only a handful of the best female players around the 2700 mark. However, in club play or on public-access chess sites such as this one (or ICC), there are enough players of both genders to make the gender issue irrelevant.

As far as performance is concerned, only rating matters. Naturally, a woman with a FIDE rating of 2400 would beat all untitled players on this site with a 99.99% certainty. And there are plenty such women. There are also a lot more such men, but you don't usually see them hanging around here.

HEre is a documentary with 5 or 6 people assumed to be intelligent because of the work they do or their backgrounds.

It has Susan Polgar. She did not fare well at all.

That's as silly as saying "In my eyes, a WCM is just as good as a 1700 rated man". Your logic is nonexistent. 

Alright, I had two people take an opinion I stated way too literally.  I acknowledged that there is a 300 point difference between the two.  My assumption based on the title of this thread is that we are looking at the broader picture of things.  Currently the top 70 women chess players in the world have a standard rating of 2400+ or better.  Judit Polgar sits at the top with a rating of 2676.  In the overall top 1400 list, she is at 66, which means there are 65 men ahead of her, 47 of whom are rated 2700+.  Men and women do not always play in tournaments together, even though some of the top women players can be seen in major tournaments.  It's a lot harder to rise a lot of rating points for women if they aren't consistently playing with the men, who are higher rated.  Ratings formulas are complex, and based on a given TPR of an event.  If you're a woman playing at a 2400+ level, and you have a good tournament against other 2400+ female players, your rating isn't going to climb very fast if you're meeting the basic requirements for maintaining a given rating.  Now, if you're a 2400+ women, and you have a good tournament against 2500 and 2600+ men, you've exceeded expectations of your rating, and are more likely to gain more points.  I honestly do not know how many women are actually playing with men in mixed tournaments, and how many women are actually playing with only women in tournaments (which do exist), so I can't give much more of an explanaition than I already have.

It'd be asinine to assume people would think you meant something other than what you said. Words have meaning. If you don't mean what you say, either indicate that or don't say it. 

Your theory is that because women are stuck playing against people of a lower Elo (women) then they must be better than their rating, because women are better than their rating. No, most people, certainly not the majority of female players, do not become Grand Masters playing only glorified national masters. 

I suspect women who only play amongst themselves devalue their own Elo, anyhow. It's like what Brazil does for mobas. 

Edit:
I should elaborate. Brazillians are reknowned for being horrid at mobas, because they typically play from net cafes on laggy servers they don't belong in. When they play with each other, the "best" of the worst get a higher ranker, and then get demolished when they play on servers with less inflated elo ratings.

ahueaheuahe

Okay, you're right.

"In my eyes, a woman who is 2400+ FIDE is just as good as a 2700+ FIDE rated man."

As Azukikuru said, the sensible, tolerant view, is to say a woman who is 2400+ FIDE is just as good as man who is 2400+ FIDE, because she is. Your statement, on the other hand... is just strange. No, I am way more impressed by a 2700 rated man than a 2400 rated woman, just as I would be more impressed with Judit Polgar than I would be with a 2400 rated woman. I don't see how the 2400 woman is as impressive -- in fact, what would I have to look for to think so?

Player pool is not a problem for rating improvement as long as the pool isn't obnoxiously small -- the pool of women in women's tournaments is plenty. The best will rise to the top, because they will beat the women who have not improved more often, and the more often this happens, the higher rated the top female will be. Hou Yifan has been getting better probably (good for her) and has consequently beaten her opponents more often and gained rating points. If she did not improve, this simply wouldn't happen.

"but most of those women will mop the floor with anybody here,"

Absolutely -- and they deserve admiration for that. But, as someone who appreciates strong players, I could never feel inclined to compare a 2700's results, whether they are male or female, to that of a 2400. All of that work it took to get there would go unappreciated.

"for me its ridiclous to care so much about intelligence - very sure the people with less intelligance care more - - so find the solution and post it and show how much you can LOL -"

One could make a case for the opposite. Sometimes it takes intelligence to realize what you might be implying for example, and being able to do that allows you to be more careful with words. And being careful with words is one way of respecting other people. That's just one example.

Intelligence is a tool, and it can help emotionally as well as practically. It has to be used right of course -- an intelligent person developing arrogance instead is not good.

Prudentia: Beating 2400 players as a 2400 exceeds expectations of your rating. Think about it. If you're able to beat so many 2400s, how good could these 2400s really be? Do you deserve to be in the same club as them? Of course not -- you deserve to have a higher rating than them, and indeed you will gain many rating points by beating them consistently. Especially considering that most high level tournaments have 8+ rounds -- it doesn't take too many tournaments for the rating to account for an improvement -- even one is usually enough.

The expectations of a 2400 is to draw 2400s, or lose to them as often as beating them. Because, supposedly, a 2400 is no better than a 2400, and this will be represented by a 2400 not changing rating when they play as a 2400 would be expected to play.

Susan,Judit,Sofia,respectively, "The Polgar sisters" are 3 literal and real examples that women are not "bad at chess" or at least can be good at Chess and not just good but very good at that!

The one thing I love about our favorite board game is that it doesn't matter what age,sex,creed,color,religion etc,none of those things matter.  Chess is at it's core is mind vs mind,it's my mind vs your mind and the person who knows more about the game usually wins,the so called "stronger" player.  This "player" can be a male,female,black,white,Asian, European,green,red purple lol haha,handicapped,in a wheel chair,it doesn't matter.  

Chess imho is probably the PUREST form of competition that there is for reasons I have already stated.  Any physical sport,is it really fair to begin with?,take for example Arm Wrestling,is that fair? no it's not because you may have a longer forearm then I do (most guys do,as I am a terrible arm wrestler and believe me I tried lol,even to the point of injury!) which then ultimately gives you a leverage advantage and of course that's a big deal in arm wrestling,thus,the competition was never fair from the start.

I love Chess period,yeah yeah,I know,my rating sucks but I love Chess and probably will be playing it for the rest of my life and I'll play anyone,men women boys girls and ????s (<----that's a joke so don't take it personal!).  Ya but ya'll get the point......Message me etc. if you want to play a game....

lol

there are differences in how males and females think, their intellectual processes, not in the quality of their thoughts. it might be the case that the manner in which chess as a sport is organized (how tournaments and games themselves are scheduled and played) is more suited to men than it is for women (in general) as a result of strange random physiological things that people haven't studied or thought about yet.

wonder if women would equal or better men in terms of match play---playing a series of games against the same person. wonder if men might be better than women in tournament play---facing a variety of opponents, a new one each day. if this were true it might help explain why women seem to have a tough time cracking the top ten.

Thank goodness for that!  This world would be simply boring if women and men were the same right?? 

Why can't two end pieces be together? Are you homophobic? 

Like your thinking and appreciate your attitude... wish I'd said that....

i'm guessing the quote is out of context and a bit unfair.  partly due to societal roles, partly due to smaller incidence of women playing chess.  overall, women do not demonstrate the same commitment to chess.  i see that so many of these titled players have logged so many games on the ICC (altho i am seeing rating deflation there so now some are playing elsewhere)!  J Polgar and Hou Yifan are at the top of women's chess.  idk if there are any young female prodigies that are on track to compete with them in the long term, maybe Aleksandra Goryachkhina.

Who would have thought that an opinion from one person would create such a hubbub :D 

@Elubas, Thank you for taking the time to post some of your thoughts.  Always a pleasure to read what you have to say.