Are top female chess players as deranged as their male counterparts?
Sort:
so....getting back to the topic ,are top female players also nutbags or is it the exclusive territory of males?
Well, you aren't a GM. And you seem to be a bit of a nutbag. So maybe being good at chess is unrealated.
There sure are some female chess players with odd personality quirks too.
Although I would not go so far as to call them deranged.
GM Susan Polgar seems to think those female world champion titles her sister Judit didn't want and left lying around for her make her very special indeed - the amount of self-promoting I see from her is a bit embarrassing tbh.
Including placing her photo on the cover of a book called "My brilliant brain".
WGM Natalia Pogonina published a book where chess positions are being compared to kamasutra-style positions. Even considering that sex sells, this seems a bit...odd as a choice of book.
Solastalgia wrote:
Is that true about Steinitz and Rubinstein? I read that Rubinstein wanted to become a rabbi following in his father's footsteps until he discovered a great talent for chess. I always thought of Steinitz as a scholarly, civil, professor type and not someone petty and immature for his age. I know people as young as six who don't spit at people after losing!
Dirty_Sandbagger wrote:
There sure are some female chess players with odd personality quirks too.
Although I would not go so far as to call them deranged.
GM Susan Polgar seems to think those female world champion titles her sister Judit didn't want and left lying around for her make her very special indeed - the amount of self-promoting I see from her is a bit embarrassing tbh.
Including placing her photo on the cover of a book called "My brilliant brain".
WGM Natalia Pogonina published a book where chess positions are being compared to kamasutra-style positions. Even considering that sex sells, this seems a bit...odd as a choice of book.
Agreed with the oddity of comparing chess positions to the Kamasutra, but what's wrong with Susan Polgar's book title? Smyslov self-authored Endgame Virtuoso about his amazing endgame technique, but who disagrees that he actually was an endgame virtuoso?
The odd thing about it is that Susan, while undoubtly a very strong player, is NOT the genius in her family; her sister Judit is. So it always felt a bit embarrasing to me to see her claiming that genius level. YMMV of course.
A most subtle and beautifully delivered insult Fivewords.
Solastalgia wrote:
so....getting back to the topic ,are top female players also nutbags or is it the exclusive territory of males?
it seems you were cherrypicking the data. What was your source may I ask?
I seem to recall that Suzie (Zusua then) Polgar was the first woman to gain an IM at mens level chess in 78 (from memory)
I think the point is not that any of them are or are not geniuses (Genii?) but rather that their parents were educational theorists and their idea was that any child can be taught to excel in any given area of human endevour.
I think they have proven their point.
AxeKnight wrote:
OP is hoping female chess players are slightly nuts. That gives him a shot at having a girlfriend.
nah, i think he is too young to want a girlfriend yet. I think he is still at the girls have cooties stage...
No, they are geniuses. Think about it, IM is more than the top .5% of chessplayers, and genius is considered top 2% of IQ distribution, and considering how people of all types play competitive chess (the IQ is higher than the average probably) one can logically deduce that an average IQ person would be handicapped against a pool containing hundreds of geniuses. Both groups, the averages and geniuses, study chess intensely, learning, assimilating, and comprehending the information. A tournament game is like a school exam, you study the game, refresh tactics and theoretical endgames, review openings, etc. Yet unlike a school exam the actual learning is what’ll help you, not cheap cramming tricks geared towards optimizing passing efficiently instead of learning. Another major difference is by passing your opponent fails, and vice versa (a draw of course you both share a C.)
Some information once you learn it is yours forever. I learned the differences between there, their, and they’re and proper apostrophe usage many years ago, and that information stuck with me as such information has a practical real world application (not looking like an idiot.) Likewise in chess I have learned much of its grammar in the form of theoretical endgames, tactics, positional imbalances such as various kinds of pawn structures, weak pawns, color complexes, and prophylaxis, and that sticks with us. Chess has its scientific statics and dynamics that must be falsified according to the position's needs.
Well, I think that pretty much settles it OogieBoogie. I cannot imagine anybody get past that argument soon.
Unless someone notices it has nothing to do with the topic of course.
Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, and Carlsen weren't/aren't insane.