Women Playing Chess

It was a stupid remark in the first place. Why can't some people admit they they lost to a better player, or on that given day, their game wasn't up to par, or in that particular game the other person just played a better game. Sheesh. When I lose a game, I don't whine about it. I lost. That's it. I didn't win. Next time, instead of whining, try looking over your game & see if there's anything you should have done better. The age or ethnic background has nothing to in chess. It's an equal game at the start. There are going to be lots of players better than you whether they are 5 years old or 80. 

It is not an equality for all issue.  The issue is why you random boys seem to feel that you're supposed to be better than girls, when you're not.  You are going to be beat by more girls than black guys in your lifetime but apparently you only mind the shock if it's racial rather than sexist.  Chill out and stop making it sound like girls are retarded.  They can and will beat you. 

When you're a Super GM, then you might feign a little surprise.

And the OP's joke...just wasn't funny.  Using women to feel like there is a group that you are superior to is pathetic and a very real societal issue...and great proof that it's not just third world countries who are ignorant. 

When I think of the ACT, I think of Louisiana and Alabama.  Maybe Ohio.  Sorry, I've only encountered SAT and SAT II's.  My mistake.

Yes, I speak in specifics and you're worming your way around with vague words.  It's been great. 

This thread brings to mind an incident that happened back in my high school days at the grand old age of 16, or 17.  There was a gal in our school named Pam Morris and she was exceptionally strong !  In those days the boys used to like to arm wrestle to see who was "strongest" . The girls usually didnt take part in such contests for various reasons. Pam was an exception and I recall being somewhat humiliated because I could NOT beat her !  ( we tied as neither of us could put the other down ! )  Why was I humiliated ?  Well, because she was a girl !  Yes, I said it and I dont care who gets hurt feelings by this. Females are simply NOT as strong as men in general and I think even the touchy feely types should know this , even though they may not admit it because they are touchy feely.  Many guys picked at me unmercifully for " not being able to beat a girl " at arm wrestling ! I got my revenge though when some of these same guys, that were picking at me so, were actually beaten by Pam !  LOL  Oh, and btw , Pam and I were good friends and had several classes together and often laughed about her exceptional upper body strength and the "trouble" it caused the boys in school. I would have been equally upset by any of the school " book worms " beating , or drawing me, as well..... so please dont call me sexist.

Reb.  After the age of...what is it, five or seven...boys are consistently stronger than girls in upper body strength.  As adults, men have twice the upper body strength of women and I believe women have two thirds of men's lower body strength.  This Pam definitely sounds like an exception to the rule. Even as adults one could say "that's an unusual thing". 

Can you say that about being beat by a girl at chess?  And if you are going to remark that being beaten by a child prodigy at chess is painful...would you feel it's fine to say being beat by a girl child prodigy is more humiliating? 

Makes me wonder what we girls are expected to think of ourselves.

 I have been beaten by enough females that losing to them no longer bothers me .  I did play tournament chess in the US for 25 years though without ever losing to or drawing a female opponent. This had a LOT to do with the fact that there were so few females playing and then the ones I did play were several hundred points lower rated so I was supposed to win.

Pam's secret was that she had no brothers and had a hard/rural life. She had a younger sister and back then kids had "chores" to do and some of her daily chores included stuff that built upper body strength, like chopping/splitting wood with an axe ! Today such "chores" are probably considered as "child abuse" by the touchy feelies out there....... sad but true.

I dont like losing at chess ( or anything else ) to kids though, whether male or female and their races and or nationality/religion also dont matter. The reason isnt that I think I cant be, or shouldnt be, beaten by kids but has more to do with they way they act when they do win..... some of them gloat when they win and cry when they lose...... who wants to play anything with such a person ?

"Makes me wonder what we girls are expected to think of ourselves."

Enough thinking, where's my dinner?

EDIT: (just in case the humour was missed).

At puberty, not five or seven.

The Good Ship Losing to Little Girls has sailed. I think most everyone was charmed rather than angry.

Perhaps it's time to stop relying on just the Polgars to represent all females in chess. Men have more than one or two chess greats to represent the gender. It's time women did too.

my second most frequent oppo on this site, whom I think of as a friend, is a woman in her thirties - my record against her DWLDDL and I'm losing our latest an' all - it don't bother me at all, I like her unpredictable style

Sorry to break the news, but chess is not a war game. There's no hunting or violence or blood or muscle power or whatsoever.There's no reason men would be better than chess if patriarchal ideologies (educational system, self-worth, "suitable activities" etc) hadn't taken a huge part in the raising of individuals and the structuring of society as a whole. It's pure nonsense.

The references you give, like the jail system, or women being better nurturers etc are all part of this same horribly patriarchal society and it doesn't have anything to do with the pure potential of the genders. Men can tie napkins or cook just as good as women, just like women can commentate soccer games or play chess just as good as men.

....I think women are hiding weapons of mass destruction...lets get our troops in there as fast as we can...har har

Whereas differences between 'races' are largely cosmetic (though not exclusively as anyone who studies medicine will know), the differences between the sexes are another story alltogether. Many real differences are reported, physical and (not surprisingly as the brain is a physical thing too) mental. 

Certain tensions that exist between the sexes (and are in my opinion mostly harmless and 'normal') exist practically everywhere and in almost all cultures.

I think there is a difference between being a discriminating bigot and by just admitting that (as a guy) you find it slightly worse to lose to a 12 year old girl than to a 12 year old boy.

In fact, I think that most men suffer from enough machismo to find it slightly worse being beaten by a girl. I don't think such a preference (which may be by definition discriminatory) automatically leads to unacceptable or unsportsmanlike behaviour.

If I'd lose OTB to a 12 year old girl most of my friends would be slightly more amused than if I lost to a 12 year old boy. But I wouldn't treat them different at the board at all, and I'd respect both for beating me. 

The main reason I responded is because I think the debate about equality of the sexes is sometimes taken too far. Yes, men and women should have the same opportunities and the same wages. In any individual case I can't say anything about who would be better than the other in whatever activity.

But there are differences between us men and women too, and I don't think they all have to be buried under thick layers of equality. Some tension between the sexes is normal and makes things more interesting in my opinion.

Hm...this isn't scientific at all, but has anyone else noticed that girls who do not have brothers tend to be slightly more independent and strong-willed?   I wonder if there's been any research on this topic.

Chess is not a war game? I think that is quite a statement. To me, chess is definitely a war game - you have to KILL the enemy king.

That it is slightly more abstract than throwing spears and slightly less bloody too doesn't matter that much. The game is tailored well to extreme degrees of competitiveness and killer instinct.

There are tendencies related to race, gender, age, ethnicity etc. which are observable...and there many reasons to explain such observations...this is understandable.

But to imply that women should not be playing chess...

...what's up with this?

I think you missed my point.  Afaf's post was meant to parallel the original, presumably with the intent of highlighting the sexism that for some reason seems even more absurd when applied in the other direction.

By softening it with the replacement of some of her keywords with the politically correct versions you've undermined the impact it was meant to have.  That's all I was trying to highlight with my post.

I don't think anyone implied that.  Just that it's more shameful and shocking to lose to females than to males.  And then tngerb picked up the torch and said why can't we just admit that it's true. 

RC Woods...

If you really look at chess, it's more about the sort of subversive tactics women tend to use when undermining one another.  The decoys and the discovered attacks...

It is not the typically masculine version of spears and guns and conquer that prevails in real war.  Sometimes you have a clever or tactically brilliant general or two who get to use this genius, but war embodies something else for the most part. 

And anyone who really thinks men like power or control more than women...are really out of touch with reality and need to stop watching tv.

I don't want to KILL the enemy king, do you? I just want to checkmate him. I want to make subtle maneuvers, employ tactics, grab that file, control that diagonal and improve my position. I think chess=killer instinct is a huge hype. It's just a logical board game, no blood or murder is involved.

If chess being a "war game" and men being "hunters striving for blood" could be used as an argument to why men should be better chess players, I wonder if actual hunters or actual soldiers would tend o be better at the game. The whole thing sounds ridiculous to me.

EDIT:

sorry but I could go on and on about this. When you're calculating checkmate in 6, are you honestly trying to hunt the king down? I mean, let's assume for a moment that men really are hunters, and have tendencies towards violance, war etc, but what you're feeling right at that moment, when looking at mating variations, does that have anything with hunting, violence, killing? I think if the answer is yes for any individual, there's something substantially wrong with their psychological condition.

EDIT 2: (and on and on)

So, let's say the whole killer mood is unconscious then, as a counter argument. With that checkmate in 6 situation, would a women pity the king? I mean, would she feel sorry for the guy, would her instincts slow her down someway, or whisper "aaaw look at that cute little king, you're not going to KILL that are you?" and let him escape ?

or, even worse, would her subsconcious "womanish attitude" (which doesn't involve, as opposed to men, any competitive drive or killing instinct whatsoever, according to the theory"), supress the mating lines altogether, hide the escape route of the king?

Would psychoanalysis make her a better player then?

I think the chess is a war game + men have more killer & hunter instinct = men are better chess players than women is nonsense.

The only argument that could be taken remotely seriously here is perhaps that men are more competitive or ambitious than women by nature, which is obviously wrong either.