x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Aronian: Women Cannot Play Chess

  • #121

    But that can't be right -- it's inconsistent with the preconceived notion that men are somehow intellectually superior.

  • #122

    Here's what I don't understand. Why does everyone have to make the Man vs. Woman debate into a debate of superiority? A better debate would be if there are actually differences by nature. This would mean there are strengths and weaknesses in certain areas for each gender. It would not mean that there is a "superior" gender. It would mean that the genders are different and inclined to different skill sets. I am much more inclined to believe that argument than the argument that men (or women) are superior, or (the buzzword these days) equal. Equal human rights, yes. "Equality" being the sameness in all aspects of being, now that is much more questionable.

     

    The "superiority" argument of men vs. women reminds me of the old misconceptions on intelligence. Engineers are "smarter" than artists. Doctors are "smarter" than performers. It has become much more clear nowadays that there are different sorts of intelligences, it's not actually "smart" vs. "not smart." I believe the man vs. woman superiority debate to be similarly ancient, and it will eventually be phased out, just like the "what type of person is smarter" debate.

  • #123

    Aronian was just knocked out of the FIDE World Cup. Adios.

  • #124
    DrCheckevertim wrote:

    Here's what I don't understand. Why does everyone have to make the Man vs. Woman debate into a debate of superiority? A better debate would be if there are actually differences by nature. This would mean there are strengths and weaknesses in certain areas for each gender. It would not mean that there is a "superior" gender. It would mean that the genders are different and inclined to different skill sets. I am much more inclined to believe that argument than the argument that men (or women) are superior, or (the buzzword these days) equal. Equal human rights, yes. "Equality" being the sameness in all aspects of being, now that is much more questionable.

     

    The "superiority" argument of men vs. women reminds me of the old misconceptions on intelligence. Engineers are "smarter" than artists. Doctors are "smarter" than performers. It has become much more clear nowadays that there are different sorts of intelligences, it's not actually "smart" vs. "not smart." I believe the man vs. woman superiority debate to be similarly ancient, and it will eventually be phased out, just like the "what type of person is smarter" debate.

    This has been going on since the stoneage.

    Men "generally" will always be superior nerds to women.

  • #125

    Surely you mean "act", as opposed to "be".

  • #126

    Women "generally" will buy more shoes and gossip more than men.

  • #127
    TheGrobe wrote:

    Surely you mean "act", as opposed to "be".

    all the world's a stage.

  • #128
    the400blows wrote:

    Women "generally" will buy more shoes and gossip more than men.

    One of the reasons girls are so bad at chess is having to stay lip-zipped the whole time.

  • #129
    Legally-Blonde wrote:

    One of the reasons girls are so bad at chess is having to stay lip-zipped the whole time.

    OMG!, are you serious? Wink

  • #130

    Chewing gum helps but only a little Cry

  • #131

    hunting dinos of course (according to flintstones).

  • #132

    So Aronian left the field of 32 today, I was pretty sure that would happen & Kramnik is next to lose. The reason that's my feeling is because both Aronian & Kramnik are already qualified for & are in the candidates tournament, they aren't as motivated as some of the other participants.The top 2 finishers at this world cup get 2 more spots. I hate that Judit went home so early, this was kind of a comeback event for her but that's how it is. Gotta take every game serious at that level. I wonder of she'll continue her semi retirement or continue to play.

  • #133
    fabelhaft wrote:

    A top GM from a couple of decades back that makes Aronian seem comparatively balanced is Ulf Andersson:

    "I consider it unworthy and degrading to lose against a woman. Women can never be as good as men in chess"

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1354766&kpage=1#kibitzing

    It shouldn't matter who you lose to. You are simply losing to another chess player, no matter who you play. Yes, that person may be male or female, but the only important distinction is that they are a chess player, one of many chess players. If I lose to a 2100 female, it's not like it's especially disapointing because, I'm expected to lose to a 2100 player anyway :)

  • #134

    If we are to be scientific about this... the "control" variable is "time put into chess training."

    Polgar for eg has a massive advantage her father was a genius and made it a project (from before his daughters were born) to turn them into chess machines.. they lived and breathed chess.

    Compare her to a Kramnik (who also had a similar education)... who has a massive positive record against her... like 12-0 now, he never lost to her in classical.

    There are at most 3 or 4 women who have raised to a 2700 ish level... and they all have similar "narrow" styles "tactical machies" with terrific and narrow deep openning prep (Polgar, Hou, Ushenina)...

    Players like Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen invent and design how we play... the women players mimic these. Kramniks stlye evolved and changed many times over the years.. Polgars never once changed.

    Also in  a match a woman will never stand a chance... men have the advantage of toughness, durability, stamina, stronger nerves, stoicness etc.

    Women can be good players no doubt... but if given an equal education with a male.. chances are the male will rise above her at least 8/10 times.

  • #135

    You can't start a post with 'if we are to be scientific about this' and end it with 'the male will rise above her at least 8/10 times.'

  • #136

    Even King Kong agrees (or is it Bigfoot ?).

    Chess is a man's world.

  • #137

    Some girl called me a nerd because she saw me playing at work, I asked her why she didn't play and she said its a game for smart people.

  • #138

    At least that's what many think.

  • #139
    Scottrf wrote:

    You can't start a post with 'if we are to be scientific about this' and end it with 'the male will rise above her at least 8/10 times.'

    Thats my working hypothesis (science)... which by the way has been proving to be correct in the last 20 years

  • #140
    Legally-Blonde wrote:
    the400blows wrote:

    Women "generally" will buy more shoes and gossip more than men.

    One of the reasons girls are so bad at chess is having to stay lip-zipped the whole time.

    Ill tell you what women are the grandmasters of though... excuse manufacturing.. always ready with an excuse at the drop of a hat! (I must admit the female brain is much superior at this than the male brain.)

    I dont know what circles you move in, but in my circles fathers spoil their daughters much more than the sons.... they dont tell them to shut up and goto the kitchen.

    Look at the Carlsen family... 1 boy, 3 sisters... All learned chess... Magnus rapidly overtook the girls, went on to deeper study and the girls all lost interest... a pretty typical scenario I would imagine.

Top
This forum topic has been locked

Online Now