Can women be as good at chess?

Sort:
Avatar of Elubas
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:

I was just about to send you a message to warn you about reading it, batgirl

It seems like easy reading though. Half of it is bitching, rather than educational, so it goes down pretty quickly. Although I still say that the bitching is relevant given what Darth Algar was saying to me in that quoted post.

I assure you batgirl you won't be poisoned by reading it.

It's funny that Darth Algar said you should edit your posts--sounds familiar, right?

Yes, that does seem to be something he shares with other people who were stumped by my points :)

Well I mean, there is a bit of a pattern. People do respond to my points, even the long ones, maybe for 2 or 3 posts, up until I come up with a point that apparently they can't meet. And only then do they seem to stop and complain.

You do have to admit that in general, humans have a very, very strong resistance to changing their opinion, or really, making any concession at all. At first they'll want to actually set up a counter argument, but even when they stop finding them, they'll do anything to justify them keeping their view. 

Avatar of Raspberry_Yoghurt
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:

I was just about to send you a message to warn you about reading it, batgirl

It seems like easy reading though. Half of it is bitching, rather than educational, so it goes down pretty quickly. Although I still say that the bitching is relevant given what Darth Algar was saying to me in that quoted post.

I assure you batgirl you won't be poisoned by reading it.

It's funny that Darth Algar said you should edit your posts--sounds familiar, right?

Yes, that does seem to be something he shares with other people who were stumped by my points :)

Well I mean, there is a bit of a pattern. People do respond to my points, even the long ones, maybe for 2 or 3 posts, up until I come up with a point that apparently they can't meet. And only then do they seem to stop and complain.

You do have to admit that in general, humans have a very, very strong resistance to changing their opinion, or really, making any concession at all. At first they'll want to actually set up a counter argument, but even when they stop finding them, they'll do anything to justify them keeping their view. 

Yeah it's kind of creepy, when people get cornered it's like their minds go CANNOT COMPUTE INITIATE SHUTDOWN, and the rest they say is just nonsense or they get angry and switch the topic to emotional stuff, or they just leave the discussion.

Avatar of Raspberry_Yoghurt

I think though that sometimes it can affect people months or maybe even years later. I had some discussion with a girlfriend when I was early 20ies about some political stuff, a sorta recurring thing we we talking about, and had to admit to myself she was right - but that was maybe 10 years after I lost contact with her, so she will nener know she won the debate eventually :)

Avatar of trysts
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:

I was just about to send you a message to warn you about reading it, batgirl

It seems like easy reading though. Half of it is bitching, rather than educational, so it goes down pretty quickly. Although I still say that the bitching is relevant given what Darth Algar was saying to me in that quoted post.

I assure you batgirl you won't be poisoned by reading it.

It's funny that Darth Algar said you should edit your posts--sounds familiar, right?

Yes, that does seem to be something he shares with other people who were stumped by my points :)

Well I mean, there is a bit of a pattern. People do respond to my points, even the long ones, maybe for 2 or 3 posts, up until I come up with a point that apparently they can't meet. And only then do they seem to stop and complain.

You do have to admit that in general, humans have a very, very strong resistance to changing their opinion, or really, even making any concession at all. At first they'll want to actually set up a counter argument, but even when they stop finding them, they'll do anything to justify them keeping their view. 

 I know you think your posts are educational and compelling, but maybe they're not so much? Maybe they're wishy-washy? I'm not saying they are, but maybe they are? Of course I'm not implying they are, but lets just say they might be? Maybe it's difficult to find a point when you get so lost in other thoughts? Though I'm not really saying anything like that, but lets just act like I am?

Avatar of Elubas
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:

I was just about to send you a message to warn you about reading it, batgirl

It seems like easy reading though. Half of it is bitching, rather than educational, so it goes down pretty quickly. Although I still say that the bitching is relevant given what Darth Algar was saying to me in that quoted post.

I assure you batgirl you won't be poisoned by reading it.

It's funny that Darth Algar said you should edit your posts--sounds familiar, right?

Yes, that does seem to be something he shares with other people who were stumped by my points :)

Well I mean, there is a bit of a pattern. People do respond to my points, even the long ones, maybe for 2 or 3 posts, up until I come up with a point that apparently they can't meet. And only then do they seem to stop and complain.

You do have to admit that in general, humans have a very, very strong resistance to changing their opinion, or really, even making any concession at all. At first they'll want to actually set up a counter argument, but even when they stop finding them, they'll do anything to justify them keeping their view. 

 I know you think your posts are educational and compelling, but maybe they're not so much? Maybe they're wishy-washy? I'm not saying they are, but maybe they are? Of course I'm not implying they are, but lets just say they might be? Maybe it's difficult to find a point when you get so lost in other thoughts? Though I'm not really saying anything like that, but lets just act like I am?

Some people are wishy washy, and some people just act like assholes. Whatever. Pick your damn poison at this point.

Avatar of trysts
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:
trysts wrote:

I was just about to send you a message to warn you about reading it, batgirl

It seems like easy reading though. Half of it is bitching, rather than educational, so it goes down pretty quickly. Although I still say that the bitching is relevant given what Darth Algar was saying to me in that quoted post.

I assure you batgirl you won't be poisoned by reading it.

It's funny that Darth Algar said you should edit your posts--sounds familiar, right?

Yes, that does seem to be something he shares with other people who were stumped by my points :)

Well I mean, there is a bit of a pattern. People do respond to my points, even the long ones, maybe for 2 or 3 posts, up until I come up with a point that apparently they can't meet. And only then do they seem to stop and complain.

You do have to admit that in general, humans have a very, very strong resistance to changing their opinion, or really, even making any concession at all. At first they'll want to actually set up a counter argument, but even when they stop finding them, they'll do anything to justify them keeping their view. 

 I know you think your posts are educational and compelling, but maybe they're not so much? Maybe they're wishy-washy? I'm not saying they are, but maybe they are? Of course I'm not implying they are, but lets just say they might be? Maybe it's difficult to find a point when you get so lost in other thoughts? Though I'm not really saying anything like that, but lets just act like I am?

Some people are wishy washy, and some people just act like assholes. Whatever. Pick your damn poison at this point.

Hey, I didn't say anything I said. I'm just saying maybe? Like another way of looking at it? 

Avatar of Elubas

Ok, sure. Nothing wrong with that.

Avatar of Elubas

And I really never said I think there is something great about my posts. I just like to discuss things, and usually in a thorough way. We really should be allowed to do that. And I'm not allowed to do that, not without being accused of being a know-it-all or something. No, there is plenty I don't know, and plenty of times where I can misunderstand something. I am literally just making posts. That's it.

Avatar of trysts
Elubas wrote:

Ok, sure. Nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, you know what I mean, elubas. Just another angle--another flavour besides vanilla? Maybe cherries jubilee! Like maybe it's not so educational to get the eyes-glazed-over thing when reading a post? Maybe it's decaf in the morning? 

Avatar of NitroGene
Raspberry_Yoghurt, let's clarify the misunderstanding: I did not make that statement to excuse my average / low result as a chessplayer. I know that as a Canadian girl I had all opportunities to be a better player, but that I did not took them. I am the only one to blame.

My point was about women in less egal societies. You agree it can have an impact on the pool of possible female candidates no?

Also, women in Western societies may have had time to catch up in sciences, but perhaps their enrollement / presence was well encouraged / supported. It was promoted that their brain was as good as men in science. So they caught up with men.

Do you feel that debating about whether women 's brain can succeed in chess promotes women's participation in chess?
Avatar of Elubas

Well, then. Should we now actually talk about the thread topic, or should we continue to talk about me? :)

Avatar of trysts
Elubas wrote:

And I really never said I think there is something great about my posts. I just like to discuss things, and usually in a thorough way. We really should be allowed to do that. And I'm not allowed to do that, not without being accused of being a know-it-all or something. No, there is plenty I don't know, and plenty of times where I can misunderstand something. I am literally just making posts. That's it.

You are literally making posts, yes. If anyone even attempts to say you don't make posts then I just don't know what I'd do? I'd know they were wrong, that's for sure. You make posts, literally. And you have every right to. I'd give up chocolate for a week for your right to make posts, elubas. And you know something, I read them. Yep, I read your posts. And they're not that dangerous no matter what I say.

Avatar of Raspberry_Yoghurt
NitroGene wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt, let's clarify the misunderstanding: I did not make that statement to excuse my average / low result as a chessplayer. I know that as a Canadian girl I had all opportunities to be a better player, but that I did not took them. I am the only one to blame.

My point was about women in less egal societies. You agree it can have an impact on the pool of possible female candidates no?

Also, women in Western societies may have had time to catch up in sciences, but perhaps their enrollement / presence was well encouraged / supported. It was promoted that their brain was as good as men in science. So they caught up with men.

Do you feel that debating about whether women 's brain can succeed in chess promotes women's participation in chess?

No I don't. The less equal societies are doing good, the very equal ones are doing bad. That's the reality of it.

I don't think the brain debate matters as all for women's participation in chess at all. If you are good enough, you can go to the tourneys. So all a woman gotta do it get good enough. The female atronauts do it, so the female chessplayers could do the same.

Avatar of Elubas

Alright, I got trysts on my side. Anyone else want to try to argue that I don't make posts? Because I beg to differ.

Avatar of Raspberry_Yoghurt

I found a list of female grandmasters on wikipedia.

It has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with "most gender equal countries". It simply doesn't matter in the real world.

Nona Gaprindashvili  Georgia 1941-05-03 1978 37 special 1962–1978 2495 First female grandmaster
Maia Chiburdanidze  Georgia 1961-01-17 1984 23   1978–1991 2560  
Susan Polgar  Hungary
 United States
1969-04-19 1991 22 norms 1996–1999 2577 First to be awarded the title traditionally
Judit Polgár  Hungary 1976-07-23 1991 15 norms 2735 Youngest grandmaster ever at the time
Xie Jun  China 1970-10-30 1993 23  ? 1991–1996,1999–2001 2574  
Pia Cramling  Sweden 1963-04-23 1992 29 norms 2550  
Zhu Chen  China
 Qatar
1976-03-16 2001 25 norms 2001–2004 2548  
Humpy Koneru  India 1987-03-31 2002 15 norms 2623  
Antoaneta Stefanova  Bulgaria 1979-04-19 2002 23 norms 2004–2006 2560  
Alexandra Kosteniuk  Russia 1984-03-23 2004 20 EWC 2008–2010 2550  
Peng Zhaoqin  China
 Netherlands
1968-05-08 2004 36 EWC 2472  
Hoang Thanh Trang  Vietnam
 Hungary
1980-04-25 2007 27 norms 2511  
Kateryna Lahno  Ukraine 1989-12-27 2007 17 norms 2557  
Xu Yuhua  China 1976-10-29 2007 30 WCC 2006–2008 2517  
Marie Sebag  France 1986-10-15 2008 21 norms 2537  
Zhao Xue  China 1985-04-06 2008 23 norms 2579  
Hou Yifan  China 1994-02-27 2008 14 norms 2010–2012, 2013-2015 2686 Youngest ever female grandmaster
Nana Dzagnidze  Georgia 1987-01-01 2008 21 norms 2573  
Monika Soćko  Poland 1978-03-24 2008 30 norms 2505  
Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant  Georgia
 Scotland
1968-07-19 2009 40 norms 2506  
Tatiana Kosintseva  Russia 1986-04-11 2009 23 norms 2581  
Natalia Zhukova  Ukraine 1979-06-05 2010 30 norms 2499  
Elina Danielian  Armenia 1978-08-16 2010 32 norms - 2521  
Viktorija Čmilytė  Lithuania 1983-08-06 2010 26 norms - 2534  
Nadezhda Kosintseva  Russia 1985-01-14 2011 26 norms 2576  
Dronavalli Harika  India 1991-01-12 2011 20 norms 2528  
Anna Muzychuk  Ukraine
 Slovenia
1990-02-28 2012 22 norms 2606  
Anna Ushenina  Ukraine 1985-08-30 2012 27 WCC 2012–2013 2502  
Valentina Gunina  Russia 1989-02-04 2013 24 norms 2548  
Irina Krush  United States 1983-12-24 2013 29 norms 2502  
Bela Khotenashvili  Georgia 1988-06-01 2013 25 norms 2531  
Ju Wenjun  China 1991-01-31 2014 23 norms 2582  
Mariya Muzychuk  Ukraine
Avatar of trysts
Elubas wrote:

Well, then. Should we now actually talk about the thread topic, or should we continue to talk about me? :)

Yes, I think it's a good time to get back to the fascinating and of course unique topic of this thread. I know it's one of your favourite subjects and I'm totally ready to endure the ever-surprising views of you and all the other men wishing to clarify it all for me:)

Avatar of Robert_New_Alekhine
Quiksilverau wrote:

Musing on why there are different ladders for men and women?

Exceptions aside, can women be as good at chess as men, all else being equal?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/nigel-short-uk-grandmaster-men-hardwired-better-chess-players-women

"Nigel Short, one of the UK’s greatest chess players, has incurred the wrath of the female chess community after claiming men are “hardwired” to be better at the game than women"

Is he on to something or just rubbish?

Avatar of Robert_New_Alekhine

https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=Women+Chess

Avatar of Elubas
trysts wrote:
Elubas wrote:

Well, then. Should we now actually talk about the thread topic, or should we continue to talk about me? :)

Yes, I think it's a good time to get back to the fascinating and of course unique topic of this thread. I know it's one of your favourite subjects and I'm totally ready to endure the ever-surprising views of you and all the other men wishing to clarify it all for me:)

Well remember trysts, the topic is about "women," not you.

Avatar of Monisha_dutta

Yes offcourse they are...!!!

This forum topic has been locked