Men VS Women!
Sort:
evansgambit15 wrote:
women are not as good as men as chess because mainly men can deeply and intensely focuse better than women but women multitask better than men so men can play better chess kasparov said that an unshakeable foucuse is key to good chess that and the fact that women are more emotionaly unstable ie they cry and laugh more easily which contributes more destractions and makes them focus less and women have lesser mathimatical spatial reasoning abillitys that shows part of the reason why women get better grades because there are aids such as paper and caculaters for math students nullifying mens adv but there is no such thing in english short of cheating
He says he can't actually prove this, but he knows that men are better than women in chess. Then he acts like he could prove this if he wanted to because he's some kind of grad student or something, but that it doesn't matter to him. Anyone so opinionated as Joey would prove this if they could, but he's dodging the challenge like an athlete.
Joey is definately full of hot air, I needed to laugh this morning, thanks
hehe.. not bad ! 
(response)
joeydvivre wrote:
"women are our equals in chess" just because in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary you declare it to be so?
joeydvivre wrote:
Robotjazz sure chose an unoriginal thing to troll about. So you and your girlfriend sat around and came up with "in a game of logic both men and women are equals"? Well, the reasons men have been more successful at chess than women include:
1) Evolutionary reasons - Chess is only partially a game of logic. I'd take on Bobby Fischer at his best in a logic contest any day. Chess also includes spatial perception, visualization, memorization, pattern recognition, and intuition (probably others I left out). Declaring that men and women are equals in [blah] is more about politics and foot-stomping than careful thought. For example, might it be that all that spatial perception, visualization, pattern recognition stuff are adaptive skills for male hunter-gatherers so men have evolved those talents more than women?
2) Acculturation - Men in most cultures are taught to be more confrontational than women. Chess is a really in-your-face game - "Aha! You made a mistake - I'm going to show you it was mistake and punish you for it". That's not part of most women's upbringing.
3) Psycho-sexual reasons - I believe it was Reuben Fine also a psychologist that wrote a lot about this. Chess hasall kinds of psycho-sexual symbolism (the powerful queen assisting you as you slay the father figure king). The pseudo-smart always reject anything Freudian as nonsense with no particular explanation, so this one probably won't move your girlfriend.
The business about Polgar is a distraction. She is an extraordinary player - by far the best woman chess player ever. But in the time that I have been interested in chess, there has only been one woman of top 25 caliber (Polgar) and hundreds and hundreds of men in this category.
Now he says the question doesn't matter after being so opinionated. What a true politician.
@Joeydvivre
We do need a team for the VC game. Or people would be randomly assigned.
joeydvivre wrote:
a) Why do girls drop out of scholastic chess at a much higher rate than boys?
b) Why are there so few women at the very highest levels of chess?
and most of all
c) Why can't she see that I am playing chess and leave me the hell alone?
You forgot--d) all the male troglodytes with a chip on their shoulder that defend their chess superiority, as the last refuge of their man caves.
The incentives for women to be at the highest levels of chess are dismal. People respond to incentives. But still a few women have made it.
Perhaps most women don't like what they see at the highest levels of Chess. Who knows? The enviroment is hardly appealing, there, or in this thread.
You've made sure of that, with aplomb.
Disagree. Whenever idiotic-males start debates like this one you will see few if any responses from women. They have the wisdom to let men operate their tongues & sexual-competitiveness for a time (often making fools of themselves in process) because they do not operate in the spheres of aggressive male-behavior...
THERE IS NOT A SPORT OR COMPETITIVE GAME WHERE THEIR NOT SEPARATIONS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. RECENTLY IT WAS VOTED TO INCLUDE CHESS IN THE OLYIMPICS 
- THERE I DONT THINK THAT YOU COULD BREAK TRADITION
[COMMENT DELETED]
@joeydvivre
Yes you need a group, im working on that. You can do the boys team.
When I was talking about that randomly assigned business, I was refering to one of those games like that VC Experienced vs New members(that one's kind of old, like 7 months). You could play with out having to join a group. But the players were randomly assigned. You could just go on vote chess and select it from the list of availible games.
Or you and @Ciljettu could simply join the WWF and perhaps leave these threads alone? You two would certainly be a great tag team wrestling powerhouse.
We get it that @Joeydvivre is adament about NOT suffering fools gladly. Indeed, hydrogen and stupidity (in these threads) are the two most common elements in the universe. You perform a vital social service, with your Don Rickles comedy. Very creative.
But do you really want @Ciljettu as your fellow traveler? One hopes not.
@joeydvivre
simply put "boys' team"
alright...where's the boys team?link?
Kingpatzer wrote:
DaBigOne wrote:
Some are good, but generally, men are better. Just look at the rating lists.
DaBigOne people have, and if you look at the number of men versus the number of women players, the outliers (those at the far end of the performance spectrum) are explained almost entirely by the simple disparity of numbers. Plenty of people who don't understand statistics think the rating list proves men are better. But it doesn't.
OK, but thats the point. Since less women play, men are GENERALLY better.
If the same number of women played as men, than it would be a different story.
joeydvivre wrote:
So your experiment would:
a) Abandons any kind of random assignment as we obviously can't assign people randomly to men vs women
b) Matches people on IQ which has a very questionable relationship to chess ability
c) Abandons any notions of "blind" experimenters
d) Defines chess skill as some unspecified test after a completely naive subject has been given two weeks of lessons
e) Has some wacky experimental design where we repeat the experiment on 10 groups of 100 instead of doing the experiment on 1000 subjects (what was your reasoning on that, btw?)
You ought to be careful not to make such elementary mistakes when criticising the writing of others.
You haven't actually answered the question Joey, all you've done is talk about how much better you are than me. But as things stand now, you haven't proved anything except the fact that you just ran from the question and tried to divert to something else. So as of now, my bet was right.