Does chess have beatiful female players????

I dnt think Asking for beautifull names in chess (for mere information)has anything to do with womens Opression........so please dont put me in the SPECIAL category of people who commit crime related to gender unequality.....but since you have started the debate i will have to express my opinion on this(though we are going off the topic).........whether we accept it or not but the fact remains that women's discrimination does take place in each and every part of the world..which is sad and unacceptable......MAN AND WOMEN EACH HAVE THEIR OWN IMPORTANCE IN THE SOCIETY.....THEY HAVE THEIR OWN ROLE TO PLAY....ULTIMATELY ITS A WOMEN WHO CARRY THE SO CALLED POWERFUL MAN IN HER WOMB FOR A PERIOD NINE MONTHS AND GIVE A LIFE......I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SEEN HIM.....FOR ME MY GOD IS MY MOM........I THINK MEN SHOULD ALWAYS BE GRATEFUL TO THEM......WOMEN ARE CREATER OF THIS WORLD....THEY ARE AMAZING REALY.....WE ALL OWE A LOT TO WOMEN....

My last post was meant for u@stevedavenati

Frendu just because I think your question was sexist doesn't mean I was demonizing you. Rather I was tryng to point out the deeper societal notions brought forth from the assumptions in your post.

I think it's OK to point out to someone that they can make a remark that someone finds oppressive without the person themselves being oppressive. It wasn't your intention but your words obviously had a huge impact on the people (especially women) that responded in the forum. As I said it was your assumptions I was criticizing and usually assumptions are learned from society unconsciously. I didn't say "Frendu is sexist" because I don't think you are. And I certainly don't think you're committing crimes against women. 

I wasn't trying to antagonize you, just making a point. I apologize if I offended you.

---

Calm down. You're making too many assumptions about me by reading what I wrote and not taking the time to fully digest it. I never assigned any truth values to either side of the argument; I was merely commenting on another user's remark about how we can just keep posting and posting but neither side will make any concessions. Judging from your hostile tone, I fear that this may be the case with you as well.

In post #411, you said, "Women have the same intellectual capacities naturally as men but from an early age are inculcated to enjoy less intellectual pursuits." [Edited for spelling.] This to me sounds like a religious statement - it's something that people are taught from an early age, and the community frowns upon any attempts to question it, even though it is not based on conclusive evidence. But this is absolutely fine. I have no desire to start abolishing all faith-induced beliefs in the name of agnosticism - it's too great a task for one man. But please note that my position on this is not the opposite; I'm simply taking a neutral, scientific stance.

To answer your question, I am about to get a PhD in computational physics, so I am somewhat aware of the philosophy of science. It's something that you learn as you perform real, hard science; it's not something to be memorized from books.

 

---

What does the oppression of women have to do with the argument at hand? You insult me by assuming that I know nothing about the history of human society, or that I would be in any way unsympathetic.

There is no definitive evidence either way, and I'm sure that there never will be (at least at a scale acceptable to everybody). It's been ascertained that registered male chess players are on average about 100 rating points stronger than registered female chess players, and that this difference is not due to participation rates (i.e. there being less woman players). But rest assured: there's always a way to dispute these results with arguments that cannot be proven false.

Still, I have to wonder what the big deal is. We know that men are on average bigger and stronger than women. This is not an insult towards women. Why should any other difference between the sexes be taken as such?

All I know is progress and learning do happen from debate; so whichever side you stand on we'll grow from there. Anyway, like I said before, "glamourizing" chess by posing in bikinis or beach wear or other such gimmicks will not make it more sponsor-worthy, only the wearer. Besides, none of the top players in chess is eligible (except Polgar) to wear bikinis, so what are we looking for? See it this way: many of the top players today started by seeing their older folk play it and naturally got curious or were introduced to a 'new game' by those same folk. My idea is chess as a game can truly become popular when people are introduced into in young and gradually many people will come to play and follow the sport. It becomes a culture a la  Eastern Europe. Look at the case of F1 or football or basketball. For chess it's going to be a bit harder because of it's very nature but it has a good chance this way. The topic was simply banal; chess has beautiful women and good-looking men. And these players have got followers--in fact Anand was reported to be more popular at a time than the top cricket player in India (Frendu, did you know that?) but how has it fared? If you follow chessbase.com you'd find that some of the bodies that sponsor chess tourneys are run by enthusiasts. Frendu, if Anand became president of, say, Tata group do you think chess would lack sponsorship in India and elsewhere? Similarly, as more people become involved on a deeper level with it they'll hopefully use their resources to keep it going. Look out for Kosteniuk and co. They'll end up with some great endorsements probably but when it's tournament time I have a feeling we'll still be scouring the planet for prize money to pay the winners. Do you think all this glamour talk started today?

---

Yes, I quite understand.

I've tried eveything I can to show fondu the error of his thinking.  I am now convinced and I'm sorry it's taken so long that he is a TROLL.  I'll copy mylatest post below.  The blue print is copied from his post. My comment below.  Please don't feed the troll.

 

Hey, idiotboy (frendu)

The eighth-ranked player on the site, Ms. Manakova, 31, drew attention but also criticism when she posed nude in the men's magazines. Ms. Manakova said she thought the publicity might help women's chess.

So, how's all that sexy stuff working out for the game? 

time to take your masterbation fantasies elsewhere.

The problem, my dear smug and neutral graduate student, is that you cannot divorce your 'facts' from real lived experience in the world. It is precisely because I assumed you are the kind of person who believes one can take a "neutral scientific stance" (whatever that means!) that I claimed you make grave errors in judgement.

There is no neutral ground. Logic cannot be divorced from axioms based on passion and ultimately a certain 'worldview' of the human condition. Of course you've decided to pretend as if you have no stake in the progress of women against the tide of historical oppression, that somehow remaining neutral isn't complacency. And yes I'm sure you're 'sympathetic' from your ivory tower.

To point out a recent case in the history of science, it can be observed by experimentation that the average black person has a lower IQ than the average white person. What conclusion would we like to draw from that? I assume a racial superiorist would like to claim those arguments are valid and in no way have a historicist, cultural, or socioeconomic foundation. A humanist like myself would (I "believe" and rightfully so), that the opposite is the case. 

You, the smug scientist, would presume that the 'facts' can be interpreted only given the "hard science" treatment. But like I said above you have no criteria to measure human society by the same crieria you model your laboratory experiments. 

Yet we do have some inductive logical reasoning that could take place: Genetics tells us that all human beings are almost completely identical; in fact more penguins look more dissimilar than the average human. Also, human 'race' has been established scientifically to be a human construct, that skin color is the result of the body's regulation of the intake of Vitamin D through melanin in the skin. 

So if we want to be scientific about it were forced to deduce that race is a human cultural phenomenon based on relegating those who have been historically disadvatged into a category less than those historically advantaged.

Concluding this thought experiment I would say that if we COULD find a natural state between those who are "white" and "black" they would be equal but we cannot because we do not have a data set to fasilfy racial oppression and resultant IQ scores. 

Gender can be perceived the same way, and we have social experiments, cultural norms, and so forth that show that given the same opportunity women would perform the same as men. Your example that women have an average lower chess rating than men is a good example to use. Also that men and women across the board are seen to have the same average IQ yet men score better on spatial and reasoning tests but women score higher on verbal and reading skills. 

It doesn't take a 'leap of faith' to see that women are deprived of certain skill sets from an early age, its demostrative in lived experience. Yet you require a chart to tell you that women aren't oppressed, despite your sympathies.

The idea of human freedom presupposes that barriers to being what you want to be do not exist and the mission of a humanist such as myself is to recognize and topple barriers to human freedom. But I cannot 'prove' that human freedom exists, it is axiomatic. You, smug scientist, have to assume that reality is axiomatic because no scientific theory can tell us ultimately what matter is. You don't stand 'neutral' about the sun existing do you? Yet you have no theory for the nature of the universe. 

I think rather your 'neutrality' is actually 'complacency', which in turn is complicity in oppression. 

Polydiatonic@MY DEAR FRIEND...NW U HAVE REALISED THAT I M TROLLING..........BUT I THINK ITS VERY LATE FOR YOU TO REALISE THIS.....I HAVE DRAGGED YOU TILL 432 POSTS....I THINK THATS A VERY LONG DISTANCE.....U ARE DUMB AND A LOOSER....U PROVED THAT WITH UR PAINFULLY SLOW THINKING......FINALLY I PROVED TO BE SMARTER FOR DRAGGING YOU FOR SO LONG.....but i think u will nt prove urself dumber by posting here even after knwing that i m trolling......ba bye

---

 Ha Ha, I wouldn't bet on it.          

---

It's a very well formed argument and I wish you luck in  opening the eyes of the troll, but alas now he's admitted that he's a troll.  I tried very hard to reason with him, but it's not possible because that is the nature of the troll. 

I quoted this part of your essay because I wanted to point out that the only thing that "whites" scoring better than "blacks" on IQ tests ACTUALLY proves is that the whites are better prepared for that particular type of test.   I do suggest at this point,

PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL

Stevedavenati, your post #433 was a horrible jumble of logical errors, spelling mistakes, and ad hominem attacks combined with thinly veiled condescension. You're not going to get anyone to listen to you by insulting them. I hope you'll appreciate the fact that I did manage to read through your post and that I'll take the time to address the most blatantly erroneous points. I'll try to avoid being condescending as much as possible.

Even in your first paragraph, you admit that you made an assumption about me; what you do not see is that this instantly clouded your judgement. This kind of prejudice is not healthy. Every person has the right to be different without the fear of being categorized. Please grant me this courtesy.

You are using contemporary oppression as an argument to explain why women's performance in some fields, such as chess, is inferior to that of men. Could you please explain what kind of oppression systematically discourages only those females that have the very best potential for chess (comparable to the best males), while allowing those who are just short of that potential to continue partaking in the game? Since this discouragement is, as you say, done at an early age, it sounds like an outrageous conspiracy theory: the youngest of girls, when demonstrating exceptional ability in chess, are instantly brainwashed away from the game, while the "second best" are allowed to keep playing, thus maintaining the image that men are indeed better at chess. Is this what you are implying? Remember that participation rates have been proven not to be the answer - in fact, your argument can easily be reduced to a mere restatement of the classic participation rate argument.

Another matter: are you familiar with the theory of evolution? It's conceivable that all species on Earth are descendants of the same primal life forms. We have common ancestors with species that have remarkable inter-gender differences. For instance, spider cannibalism is a good example. This means that life contains no inherent drive to make males and females exactly alike. Is there a reason why you would assume that homo sapiens is exceptional in this respect?

And then, some small details. Yes, there are many scientific theories about what matter is. Yes, I stand neutral about the existence of the Sun. Yes, I have theories about the nature of the universe. But no, I am not a graduate student - by "about to get my PhD", I meant that I'm currently working as a post-doctoral researcher, waiting only for our department's monthly graduation day (March 25th) to get my degree, for which I applied last month.

I hope you'll grant me the same courtesy and read what I wrote. I'm not interested in banging my head against the wall.

Azukikuru, perhaps you and stevedavenati may want to adjourn to a more fitting forum to air your present views since I'm not sure it's helping our present predicament in trying to extinguish an, in my opinion, irrelevant topic. On a side note though, I dream of visiting your country to learn a thing or two from the great Ari Vatanen. 

---

BUMP.

please don't feed the TROLL.

BUMP.

Please don't bump the troll's thread.

Generally, the best way to silence trolls is not to answer them with series of long, passionate posts.

Polydiatonic@IF I M A TROLL......THEN YOU ARE MY VICTIM...lol

Azukikuru wrote:

Since this discouragement is, as you say, done at an early age, it sounds like an outrageous conspiracy theory: the youngest of girls, when demonstrating exceptional ability in chess, are instantly brainwashed away from the game, while the "second best" are allowed to keep playing, thus maintaining the image that men are indeed better at chess."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right, it is an "outrageous conspiracy theory", it's called child rearing. Remember that up until a century ago (and still continuing in some parts of the world today) women were not allowed a formal education and their familial education was based upon finding a suitable husband, learning to cook and 'run' a  household, i.e. be a baby factory and clean the dishes. It would be an outrageous assumption to believe in the last century the industrialzied world has removed its cultural residue of oppression fully.

Rather than thinking about it as "the best being turned away", think of it as all the women in the world receiving less attention and encouragemnt for their intellectual curiousities. I'm sure even the best women chess players still felt lots of pressure just for being women in an obstentibly male game (like Jackie Robinson suggested how he felt) and most probably still had pressures growing up to push them away from chess, because it wasn't something seen as 'womanly' or 'feminine'. To characterize this personal suffering as "an outrageous conspiracy theory" is once again an example of your smugness and an impetus for my ascerbic tone. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Azukikuru wrote:

Another matter: are you familiar with the theory of evolution? It's conceivable that all species on Earth are descendants of the same primal life forms. We have common ancestors with species that have remarkable inter-gender differences.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This was not the reason or purpose I brought up the theory of evolution in the first place. In fact, you've failed to answer few if any of my points. My point with evolution is not that all species on Earth are descenendents of the same primal life forms; That is a fact it is seen in the fossil record, homologous strucutres exist throughout nature. Genetics has verified 'with numbers' what was reasoned inductively a century before.

My point with evolution is that Karl Popper, your unconcious intellectual guru, when developing his theories never realized how they could be taken to their logical ends. Popper and you assume what is truly scientific is only what can be testable means you need seperate situations whereby one thing can be 'falsified' so that given different conditions it can be proven correct. An example would be testing pharmaceutical drugs; situations can be provided whereby the drug fails to work for many reasons and thus can be 'falisified' by deductive reasoning. 

But with evolution you cannot. You cannot create situations whereby another data set of evolution exists to judge it against our current actual lived and living evolution is taking place. The same is true of our cultural and historical development as humans. This is the only one we got and we can't fit it into a laboratory so we need diffrerent logical criteria to find reason in the world.

As for 'inter-gender' differences: human beings cannot be compared to any other animal in terms of intellecutal power for 'inter-gender' differences. Most current hypotheses as to why humans' brains grew so much so fast is because the increase in protein in our diet and the need to escape predators. Along the way it helped us create tools and art and the rest is history. A biological argument for the difference in brain power wouldn't stand up to anthropological evidence. Why would nature select women more likely to get caught and eaten by predators when they are half the sexual divide needed to create more humans. Also as far as mental acuity women procreating would create half the geentic code for that human's 'intelligence', so a hindrance in women's intellegence would be a human hindrance to intelligence; again it doesn't follow that if nature was selecting 'bigger' brains it wouldn't sully half the formula, i.e. women. It is not analogous to 'spider-cannibalism'.

Certainly most hunter-gatherer societies created a sexual division of labor early on, there are no certainties as to how this came in to being but the one thing that is true is that it is univerally observed throughout the history of human civilization.

Now we both know that men are larger than women. I never doubted that fact, I never disputed it. What I have continually debated is a difference in metal abilities, a disadvantage of reasoning and spatial ability in women as compared to men (i.e. chess skills in general form). The fact that women stayed by the homes, reared the children and gathered nearby food and water while men went on hunting trips is a fact and I'm prepared to say it has some biological necessities (need women close to infants to breastfeed, men's longer legs mean they run faster). This is also why most ancient hunter-gatherer societies were fairly egalitarian, because men and women did a fair share of 'bringing home the bacon'. After the agricultural revolution women also took care of crops, before the rise of city-states and the division of labor of men as workers/slaves and women as the slaves of men.

All of this, of course, belies the fact that at no point can you prove that men have more secretions of 'brain juice' that make them smarter, yet you dispute the fact that nature endows women with the same intellectual ability, or that your 'curiousity' grabs hold of you and wonders why women are not as good at chess given the same sample size. You failed to respond to any of my arguments in my last post sufficiently. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Azukikuru wrote

And then, some small details. Yes, there are many scientific theories about what matter is. Yes, I stand neutral about the existence of the Sun.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look up Descartes!

The fact that you responded to the conclusion of an argument meant to point out the absurdity of your logic is telling that we probably need to conclude this discussion. You can have the final word. 

PLease

Don't

Feed

the

Troll

Also, more food for thought on Azikakuru's assertion that participation is not a factor in chess ability between males and females. 

Here