Nigel Short is a sexist buffoon

That's an awful lot of words to justify Nigel coming out and taking a big dump on our hobby, dude.

Tell you what...maybe you should find something more positive to champion. You seem fairly bright - how about putting your energy behind something that doesn't make an awful lot of people feel really bad?

Your problem, and many people's problem, it that you want to believe in things that make you feel good, and you don't care about the evidence.

It's something causing humans a lot of trouble, for instance a lot of people today don't want to believe in climate change because it makes them feel bad.  I guess it's just part of human nature to be like that, to prefer feeling good over information and science.

You don't.

Competing on a level similar to men refers to the level of competition represented by women's ratings as a whole being less than men's ratings as a whole. Do you disagree that men and women's ratings differ generally?

If so, what accounts for this difference?

Wow. No shortage of small mindedness here. What a lovely group you all are. The stereotype really is true.

Competing on a level similar to men refers to the level of competition represented by women's ratings as a whole being less than men's ratings as a whole. Do you disagree that men and women's ratings differ generally?

If so, what accounts for this difference?

I disagree that women's brains prevent them from being as good in chess as men. And if you don't, we have nothing more to say.

Competing on a level similar to men refers to the level of competition represented by women's ratings as a whole being less than men's ratings as a whole. Do you disagree that men and women's ratings differ generally?

If so, what accounts for this difference?

I don't believe what Nigel said is true. He certainly isn't helping to promote chess by saying what he has. However, there are many false generalizations touted as facts by both genders. For example, many women are very quick to expound the ridiculous notion that men can't multi-task.

We're all human and we all say stupid things at times. One would hope though, if you're famous and are going to tell the world something, you'd consider the consequences of what you say.

Well known fashion model and actress Liz Hurley reportedly said publicly, "I'd kill myself if I was as fat as Marilyn Monroe." I wonder how many overweight teenage girls tragically did just that after hearing their hero say such a irresponsible and stupid thing.

Is there any specific reason why you think Nigel is wrong? Just writing "I don't what Nigel said is true" looks like you just woke up some morning with this particilar belief stuck in your head for no reason.

Because I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying is why I said what I said in the first place. I just think things have less meaning if we only believe something because we want it to be true. What's believing that I'm better at chess than Carlsen going to do for me? My main objection here is to how people are arguing, rather than what their position is. There are a lot of people who find it easier to immediately label something as rubbish, rather than actually refute it. Why? Because it makes them feel better. It's so fake though.

I don't even really like Nigel's personality to be honest. Who knows, maybe he has some secret urge to feel he's entitled to superiority in general just because he is male. Although... it would be a big disservice to anyone to just assume they have that kind of ulterior motive. But anyway, some of the people attacking Nigel really aren't being much better than him. I guess they're angry or something, whatever, it doesn't make their way of arguing any bit more useful.

So you get mad about stereotypes about women, and how do you respond? By proudly accepting stereotypes yourself. You know, as long as they're not about women.

You see, this is the problem of defining yourself based on someone else. Honestly, the whole idea of a role model maybe isn't even a good one, at least, not a good one to teach young kids. Because they become reliant on other people doing things for them to decide that they should do it... to the point of killing themselves... They should do something because they believe it, not because someone else did it.

I kind of don't give a shit whether or not what Nigel said promotes chess. It's like saying an article is bad because it doesn't make you want to eat bananas. Just read an article about bananas, then. Complicated chess analysis doesn't promote chess as a whole either, but whoever is interested in it can make out of the contribution what they will. I'm more in the middle on this gender issue, but I like seeing opinions on both sides; it gives me a broader view of how people think. It shows me that some chess players can think one thing, and other chess players might completely disagree.

I do think that some of what Nigel said is true but as a whole I tend to disagree with most of it.

Just going by personal experience. There is a 13 year old girl in our local chess club who has a rating of over 2200 and there is another older woman who has a similar rating. They're not the strongest players in our club, however they're far stronger than the majority of our male members.

I assure you that the majority of your clubs male members are stronger than the majority of the female members, and those two strong women are weaker than the two strongest men in the club....

I don't know your club from Adam, but the general strengths are so strong that I can confidently say the above and be right the vast majority of the time....

You can't honestly believe that Nigel meant to say that all women cann't be as good as all men. That is the only interpretation that would allow you to say what Nigel is saying is false. Consider that this man has thought this through for decades with much personal experience himself, realizes that your 13 year old example and your older woman example and Judit Polgar and etc. exist, and came to the conclusion that women do not compete on the same level as men.

For all we know, OP didn't even quote the man correctly. In fact, let me look up his statement:

"It would be wonderful to see more girls playing chess, and at a higher level, but rather than fretting about inequality, perhaps we should just gracefully accept it as a fact."

That appears to be the most damaging thing he said. Girls do not play chess as much, and they are not at the higher levels as much and it would be wonderful to see more of them at that level but they're not.

Pick a specific point that he has made and talk about it and you'll see it's not as bad as it's been made out to be.

Ummm, who the heck is Nigel Short and why should anyone care what he says? Ok, so I googled him. Again, why should anyone care what he thinks?

Nigel Short is a British Grandmaster who competed agaisnt Kasparov for the World Chess Title back in 1993. 

He is one of the strongest minds in chess in the world, and his experience in chess carries enough weight that his opinion matters to those who wish to share experiences in chess.

My point is, when did he become an authority on women and their abilities to play chess? His opinion is only that - an opinion.

It's a substantial opinion.

He noted that fewer women play chess than men.

He noted that fewer women play chess on as a high level as men. 

He noted that it would be wonderful if more women did play chess and as on a high level as men.

He noted that that's not the case and we should accept it as fact.

He noted that the sexes' brains are wired differently, causing the above.

My point is that his opinion is a strong opinion worthy of our caring and discussion.  

I have not ignored Nigel Short. This is the first time I encountered his controversial words. 

I had no expectations of the man, recognize his accomplishments, and think we SHOULD care about what he says....

Men and women's brains are biologically different, and the gray matter which contributes performance in chess is more abundant in men than in women, according to Short. 

Why no one wishes to take on the issue of biology and the facts at hand is the most disappointing part of this discussion to me.