Who are you, anyway? I assume you're someone I knew but not sure who that is. Not the first time you have trolled me I take it.
I'm new to this website, the face is my own. I've lurked here for a few weeks but this is my first time actually making an account.
I thought you were some person in the past who disliked me. I have my fair share of those over my career here 
Don't worry about it, I'm feeling a little sick, so wouldn't want to talk too much anyway.
But yeah, there is legit something wrong with me
This would more than qualify for being on that show My Strange Addiction. How long ago did I first post here? I've been nonstop since. Good lord.
Even though you thought you were being baited or trolled you just couldn't help yourself. Obsessive behavior is not healthy and I wish you nothing but the best. Less you hurt yourself or others.
Still, you seem quite obsessive as well.
I'm nice but not really invested. I am spamming games in live chess right now and mostly just attentioning that.
Well, it doesn't take much investment to insult someone. Takes more investment to actually make points that support your conclusion (even if that conclusion is an insult)
I'm not much for trying to insult people nor am I pretentious enough to take offense or be insulted myself.
Hehe... wow. Well, I guess you're allowed to say anything you want, but, damn, lol.
I don't understand the sentiment behind that one.
Then you might need to work on your comprehension.
Yeah, I thought you were someone else, I guess. I'm not even sure who it was I had in mind.
"First of all talent is a tricky word that means different things to different people, so lets leave that alone (some say it means skill, some say potential to gain skill, among other things)."
Yeah, it is tricky, but it might be worth working through. One example that might show what I was getting at is that, people often say, well, that woman is not a chess player not because she's not talented, but because she's not interested. But I'm saying, I'm not sure you can fully separate those two things. Being interested (in x pursuit) is a part of talent, sort of intertwined.
I'm not sure you can be good at something and not also be interested in it. Unless it's something really singular like being able to lick your elbow or something. I don't know, this will start to get weird, but being good at something... involves a certain kind of harmony, you know? Your body just coordinates to be able to do some particular thing well, and it just feels right, like your body is inviting for it to be pursued. I think it has to appeal enough for there to be some kind of interest, or even curiosity, that comes with that ability/talent. Sure, that doesn't mean you're the best in the world at that pursuit, or can never lose interest in it... there's varying degrees of course.
Honestly, I've been up for a very long time, and I don't think I'm expressing this that well. I'm trying to put into words how I think talent and interest are connected and people seem to want to separate them for artificial reasons (such as that it sounds more pc to say someone is not interested in something than that they are not talented in it). But, just thinking out loud at this point, which honestly, was all I wanted to do in the first place, even with my first post in this thread. Sorry if my thoughts are unclear or sloppy at this point.
For a thousand years he has lain, dormant.
But now he walks the surface of the earth once more.
To post in unsuspecting topics about women chess players.
His name is Elubas.
His text is enormous.
His stream of consciousness only loosely tied to the topic at hand.
The bones of full fifty men lay scatter across his textual wasteland.
So brave readers if you do doubt your courage or your strength... come no further.
Well I think that makes me a legend! I'll take it Yeah I see where you're coming from though. It's like, my thoughts just saved for a year, exploded, and now, everyone needs to take cover, or something like that.
Or maybe I'm like the big bang. All condensed, but after the bang, endlessly expanding.
Anyway, yeah, my thoughts about this are complex at the moment, and I don't think I'm finding the right words/sentences to fully encapsulate what I mean. Oh well. I really did try. It's just frustrating when you don't feel like you've put into words what was really going on in your head. I mean, granted, it's not like I was writing an essay in a column, else I would have edited it constantly to make it more concise. It's just my thoughts spilling out, and I did try to make them clear to some extent, but honestly, it would take me hours of editing to make it especially clear, I think. I wanted to talk about how much we should trust our instincts, and how much we should withhold judgment on them, but it's complex and difficult to explain (for me it is, anyway). Sometimes I just feel like expressing my thoughts, and it doesn't always result in something helpful for the readers. At least I satisfied my craving and let it out. It probably helps me more than it helps others, but writing can help you organize your thoughts. So it maybe at least got me thinking about the issue by writing this all down.
Life goes on, I guess
So for example my point about self-selected versus random samples gets into that a bit.
Sort of like the people who want to separate Fischer from his madness and ask what if he'd played Karpov... but to do that would make him less good at chess, because he wouldn't have had the obsession. The madness was part of the man, part of the skill.
Just like with a female chess player, her likes and dislikes are part of the equation, so a truly random sample may not be ideal, I see what you're saying.
But this might be agreeing with me? You're suggesting that in the case of Fischer, his personality was part of his talent. Not separate. So if you say that women and men have different personalities to explain the disparity, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the same talent, because personality is connected to talent. What I'm saying is I feel that people will often use personality as a separate thing, like, "oh, he doesn't lack talent for it, he just doesn't personally enjoy it."
I think people who use the stats argument are actually ultimately talking about choices and personality. "More women just need to play the game." Ok, but for that to happen, those women have to change who they are to be the kinds of people who would play chess. Social factors are to be considered too, and it's probably some kind of mix.
So for example my point about self-selected versus random samples gets into that a bit.
Sort of like the people who want to separate Fischer from his madness and ask what if he'd played Karpov... but to do that would make him less good at chess, because he wouldn't have had the obsession. The madness was part of the man, part of the skill.
Just like with a female chess player, her likes and dislikes are part of the equation, so a truly random sample may not be ideal, I see what you're saying.
But this might be agreeing with me? You're suggesting that in the case of Fischer, his personality was part of his talent. Not separate. So if you say that women and men have different personalities to explain the disparity, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the same talent, because personality is connected to talent. What I'm saying is I feel that people will often use personality as a separate thing, like, "oh, he doesn't lack talent for it, he just doesn't personally enjoy it."
I think people who use the stats argument are actually ultimately talking about choices and personality. "More women just need to play the game." Ok, but for that to happen, those women have to change who they are to be the kinds of people who would play chess. Social factors are to be considered too, and it's probably some kind of mix.
Well it depends. Are they not playing because it's not in their personality, or because some disparity in social pressures. It's not easy to know.
I think it's fair to say you need a hell of a lot of free time. The best players were even pulled out of school so they could tour around and play in tournaments. How many families are willing to do that for their daughters? Just thinking out loud.
"First of all talent is a tricky word that means different things to different people, so lets leave that alone (some say it means skill, some say potential to gain skill, among other things)."
Yeah, it is tricky, but it might be worth working through. One example that might show what I was getting at is that, people often say, well, that woman is not a chess player not because she's not talented, but because she's not interested. But I'm saying, I'm not sure you can fully separate those two things. Being interested (in x pursuit) is a part of talent, sort of intertwined.
I'm not sure you can be good at something and not also be interested in it. Unless it's something really singular like being able to lick your elbow or something. I don't know, this will start to get weird, but being good at something... involves a certain kind of harmony, you know? Your body just coordinates to be able to do some particular thing well, and it just feels right, like your body is inviting for it to be pursued. I think it has to appeal enough for there to be some kind of interest, or even curiosity, that comes with that ability/talent. Sure, that doesn't mean you're the best in the world at that pursuit, or can never lose interest in it... there's varying degrees of course.
Honestly, I've been up for a very long time, and I don't think I'm expressing this that well. I'm trying to put into words how I think talent and interest are connected and people seem to want to separate them for artificial reasons (such as that it sounds more pc to say someone is not interested in something than that they are not talented in it). But, just thinking out loud at this point, which honestly, was all I wanted to do in the first place, even with my first post in this thread. Sorry if my thoughts are unclear or sloppy at this point.
It's ok, I don't mind sloppiness at the moment, for whatever reason.
I couldn't care less about PC bullshit. I'd say I lean to the left, but ideologues are morons.
I guess the question becomes women clearly aren't as interested, but how much is nature, and how much is nurture
So for example my point about self-selected versus random samples gets into that a bit.
Sort of like the people who want to separate Fischer from his madness and ask what if he'd played Karpov... but to do that would make him less good at chess, because he wouldn't have had the obsession. The madness was part of the man, part of the skill.
Just like with a female chess player, her likes and dislikes are part of the equation, so a truly random sample may not be ideal, I see what you're saying.
But this might be agreeing with me? You're suggesting that in the case of Fischer, his personality was part of his talent. Not separate. So if you say that women and men have different personalities to explain the disparity, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the same talent, because personality is connected to talent. What I'm saying is I feel that people will often use personality as a separate thing, like, "oh, he doesn't lack talent for it, he just doesn't personally enjoy it."
I think people who use the stats argument are actually ultimately talking about choices and personality. "More women just need to play the game." Ok, but for that to happen, those women have to change who they are to be the kinds of people who would play chess. Social factors are to be considered too, and it's probably some kind of mix.
Even if more women joined the game they would funnel into the lowest levels of play. The higher up the elo ladder you go, the higher the ratio of men to women.
If it's anything like IQ and mental illness, then the lowest levels are also populated predominantly by men, but even so, you seem misinformed. Only at the 1% of 1% of 1% etc are there just men and no women, and extreme rarity is easily explained by population size, simple statistics.
Your observations are correct: women just don't play chess as well as men. It's in the way the brain works.
Men and women used to be completely different (a long time ago, men came from mars and women from venus, check the Internet if you don't believe me). Those 2 planets are very far apart so they never had a chance to meet and evolved separately. Once they got to earth, over the years, there's been some mixing but it still can't erase 4 BILLION YEARS of separate evolution.
Women are really good at kitchen work, like washing dishes and feeding the dog. Men are good are thinking tasks like playing video games and chess.
lmao looks like a solid argument. No puedo argumentar ante una lógica tan sólida. I cannot argue to such a solid logic.
Well, talking scientifically, Men ARE better at games such as chess than women. BUT since there are more Men pros, it also follows that there are more men noobs. thus the avg rating is about the same.
Also, just saying, there has not been a woman world champion yet.
So for example my point about self-selected versus random samples gets into that a bit.
Sort of like the people who want to separate Fischer from his madness and ask what if he'd played Karpov... but to do that would make him less good at chess, because he wouldn't have had the obsession. The madness was part of the man, part of the skill.
Just like with a female chess player, her likes and dislikes are part of the equation, so a truly random sample may not be ideal, I see what you're saying.
But this might be agreeing with me? You're suggesting that in the case of Fischer, his personality was part of his talent. Not separate. So if you say that women and men have different personalities to explain the disparity, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the same talent, because personality is connected to talent. What I'm saying is I feel that people will often use personality as a separate thing, like, "oh, he doesn't lack talent for it, he just doesn't personally enjoy it."
I think people who use the stats argument are actually ultimately talking about choices and personality. "More women just need to play the game." Ok, but for that to happen, those women have to change who they are to be the kinds of people who would play chess. Social factors are to be considered too, and it's probably some kind of mix.
Even if more women joined the game they would funnel into the lowest levels of play. The higher up the elo ladder you go, the higher the ratio of men to women.
If it's anything like IQ and mental illness, then the lowest levels are also populated predominantly by men, but even so, you seem misinformed. Only at the 1% of 1% of 1% etc are there just men and no women, and extreme rarity is easily explained by population size, simple statistics.
The lowest levels are populated predominately by men because there are more men than women. The ratio of women to men is highest at the lowest levels and vice versa at the highest levels, also simple statistics.
From the guy who said more women wouldn't matter because they'd be funneled into "lowest" levels.
You said lowest.
As trolls go you're pretty... average I guess, but chess.com trolls tend to be worse than average, so maybe you'll like it here.
Your observations are correct: women just don't play chess as well as men. It's in the way the brain works.
Men and women used to be completely different (a long time ago, men came from mars and women from venus, check the Internet if you don't believe me). Those 2 planets are very far apart so they never had a chance to meet and evolved separately. Once they got to earth, over the years, there's been some mixing but it still can't erase 4 BILLION YEARS of separate evolution.
Women are really good at kitchen work, like washing dishes and feeding the dog. Men are good are thinking tasks like playing video games and chess.
lmao looks like a solid argument. No puedo argumentar ante una lógica tan sólida. I cannot argue to such a solid logic.
Well, talking scientifically, Men ARE better at games such as chess than women. BUT since there are more Men pros, it also follows that there are more men noobs. thus the avg rating is about the same.
Also, just saying, there has not been a woman world champion yet.
If we're talking about the differences between genders in general, then world champ doesn't matter, especially with a difference in participation rates. You could just as easily point out we've never had a red headed world champion... a pointless observation.
So for example my point about self-selected versus random samples gets into that a bit.
Sort of like the people who want to separate Fischer from his madness and ask what if he'd played Karpov... but to do that would make him less good at chess, because he wouldn't have had the obsession. The madness was part of the man, part of the skill.
Just like with a female chess player, her likes and dislikes are part of the equation, so a truly random sample may not be ideal, I see what you're saying.
But this might be agreeing with me? You're suggesting that in the case of Fischer, his personality was part of his talent. Not separate. So if you say that women and men have different personalities to explain the disparity, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the same talent, because personality is connected to talent. What I'm saying is I feel that people will often use personality as a separate thing, like, "oh, he doesn't lack talent for it, he just doesn't personally enjoy it."
I think people who use the stats argument are actually ultimately talking about choices and personality. "More women just need to play the game." Ok, but for that to happen, those women have to change who they are to be the kinds of people who would play chess. Social factors are to be considered too, and it's probably some kind of mix.
Even if more women joined the game they would funnel into the lowest levels of play. The higher up the elo ladder you go, the higher the ratio of men to women.
If it's anything like IQ and mental illness, then the lowest levels are also populated predominantly by men, but even so, you seem misinformed. Only at the 1% of 1% of 1% etc are there just men and no women, and extreme rarity is easily explained by population size, simple statistics.
The lowest levels are populated predominately by men because there are more men than women. The ratio of women to men is highest at the lowest levels and vice versa at the highest levels, also simple statistics.
From the guy who said more women would matter because they'd be funneled into "lowest" levels.
You said lowest.
As trolls go you're pretty... average I guess, but chess.com trolls tend to be worse than average, so maybe you'll like it here.
Yes, they will be funneled, en mass, into the lowest levels of chess. Then you can mention Hou Yifan and Judit polgar and I can "troll" you by explaining outliers and drawing a pyramid to depict the distribution of women accross all elos, and a funny looking hourglass type thing for the men
Such low effort on your part.
In fact turing test bot level effort.
I suppose some sophomore comp sci major could brag about how his bot with the IQ of an 8 year old got 100 responses on chess.com.
Or you could be a human, in which case I pray you access to strong anti-depressants, because you're that pathetic.
So for example my point about self-selected versus random samples gets into that a bit.
Sort of like the people who want to separate Fischer from his madness and ask what if he'd played Karpov... but to do that would make him less good at chess, because he wouldn't have had the obsession. The madness was part of the man, part of the skill.
Just like with a female chess player, her likes and dislikes are part of the equation, so a truly random sample may not be ideal, I see what you're saying.
But this might be agreeing with me? You're suggesting that in the case of Fischer, his personality was part of his talent. Not separate. So if you say that women and men have different personalities to explain the disparity, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the same talent, because personality is connected to talent. What I'm saying is I feel that people will often use personality as a separate thing, like, "oh, he doesn't lack talent for it, he just doesn't personally enjoy it."
I think people who use the stats argument are actually ultimately talking about choices and personality. "More women just need to play the game." Ok, but for that to happen, those women have to change who they are to be the kinds of people who would play chess. Social factors are to be considered too, and it's probably some kind of mix.
Even if more women joined the game they would funnel into the lowest levels of play. The higher up the elo ladder you go, the higher the ratio of men to women.
If it's anything like IQ and mental illness, then the lowest levels are also populated predominantly by men, but even so, you seem misinformed. Only at the 1% of 1% of 1% etc are there just men and no women, and extreme rarity is easily explained by population size, simple statistics.
The lowest levels are populated predominately by men because there are more men than women. The ratio of women to men is highest at the lowest levels and vice versa at the highest levels, also simple statistics.
From the guy who said more women wouldn't matter because they'd be funneled into "lowest" levels.
You said lowest.
As trolls go you're pretty... average I guess, but chess.com trolls tend to be worse than average, so maybe you'll like it here.
Would you prefer graphite or crayola, big boy?
Whatever you can afford, kid.
As much fun as it is besting a toddler in a pissing contest, I'm going to play some drunken games now.
Do your best not getting your account closed while I'm gone.
"Well it depends. Are they not playing because it's not in their personality, or because some disparity in social pressures. It's not easy to know."
I'm convinced that both are big factors. Of course, I probably should not write another 5 paragraphs that fully detail why But you seem to agree that personality is/should be considered an important part of talent? I'm not sure how many people agree to that, or at least admit to it. It seems common for a person to say, "oh, I don't do that, I'm just not into that," and go onto make it about their choice instead of a (potential) lack of talent/skill (when in truth it's probably both to some degree as they are connected). I don't know, do you know what I mean? Have you experienced people occasionally making excuses like that?
"I think it's fair to say you need a hell of a lot of free time. The best players were even pulled out of school so they could tour around and play in tournaments. How many families are willing to do that for their daughters? Just thinking out loud."
Yeah, it's a fair point. And to think out loud as well, I really don't think that if a girl was showing early promise that she would often be discouraged to move on with it much more than a guy. What I do think is that, if she did not show early promise, parents would probably be less resistant to her giving up than they would if they had a son instead. But I don't think we live in this super hostile environment towards women or something. People just don't really give a crap about what you do for the most part. For example I've had my hair short and really long (below shoulders) and it was uncanny at how almost everyone seemed to treat me exactly the same either way. I think people are just often minding their own business, and for a girl to do well at something she likes doesn't hurt them, so it's like whatever, there is no point in having negative energy towards that, let her do whatever she wants. I think society really has been changing in that way. It's like how they say, people pay 95% less attention to you than you do to yourself, or something like that.
I think that the idea of sexism and racism being wrong is so constantly addressed, that people are extremely aware of it, extremely used to it. The idea of just being like "you're a girl, that's so silly that you play chess," I don't know, direct bigotry like that is seriously dying. Sure, there will always be someone who will say that, but that's like saying there will always be negative people out there, and negative people are just looking for the easiest way to make you upset, whether it's calling you four-eyes or some other lame way of shaming someone.
So, I dunno, can't prove what I'm saying, but to summarize I'd say people are pretty chill about things now. In political discussions, yes, things get heated, but, those same people that you would get heated with in politics would probably be really chill to you in any other situation. People just go insane when they discuss politics. For me personally my experience with the "controversial" long hair made me get a very chill impression from people, like they just did not give a crap.
So, I'm not saying women aren't held back, but that the extent to which they are tends to be highly exaggerated. I think it only explains part of the disparity.
Sorry stiggling, I didn't check out your responses to my actual points yet. I might look at them now, or soon.