"The best chess players are male.
Therefore, and due to their gender, men are better at chess than women."
Not a necessary conclusion, but not totally implausible either.
sexism in chess?
Sort:
Correct.
Maybe I should have said: is not a good argument.
What do you mean? Some of the best players I know are men. 
Reb wrote:
FIDE World Chess Championship 2005. San Luis, Argentina Crosstable.
Judit wins no games and finishes last.
Judit wins no games and finishes last.
Exactly this. And Americans are bad at chess because they're American.
With a boy? Hmm....
shell_knight:
Exactly this. And Americans are bad at chess because they're American.
Hikaru Nakamura is chinese.
Yeah. Classic Chinese name, that.
Native Americans are probably bad at chess too.
But that's not what I meant when I said American. People who live in the USA are worse at chess than those who are the best players... Naka doesn't count because he lost a tournament badly once.
Nov 19, 2014
0
#110
Born in America but chinese?? Hmm makes sense... lmao. I guess that makes me irish,english,italian, french, dutch, rather than american. Actually technically that makes us all african, since it doesn't matter where we were born just where our ancestors originally came from, and humans originated in africa. So technically all the top chess players are african, good to know pucci.
Rogue_King wrote:
Born in America but chinese?? Hmm makes sense... lmao. I guess that makes me irish,english,italian, french, dutch, rather than american. Actually technically that makes us all african, since it doesn't matter where we were born just where our ancestors originally came from, and humans originated in africa. So technically all the top chess players are african, good to know pucci.
Naa, Naka was born in Hirakata Osaka Prefecture... in China.
Some troll.
The important thing is, if you do badly in a tournament, it means people like you are inherently bad at chess.
Mersaphe wrote:
Hikaru Nakamura was born in Hirakata, Osaka Prefecture, Japan on December 9, 1987 to Shuichi Nakamura, from Japan, and Carolyn Nakamura (maiden name unknown), from America. He is of half Japanese and half Caucasian descent. His parents divorced in 1990. He began playing chess prior to the age of five and was coached by his Sri Lankan stepfather, FIDE Master and chess author Sunil Weeramantry.
You probably got that off Wikipedia (which by the way can be edited by any idiot).
Just look:
Hirakata.
Osaka Prefecture.
Hikaru Nakamura.
Obviously someone edited it as a prank. He's Chinese.
They all look the same to me, im sry. 
shell_knight wrote:
Azukikuru wrote:
Oh, FFS.
No, it's not. Participation rates have been proven not to be the cause of the gender performance difference, despite biased research efforts that have tried to prove otherwise.
That didn't disprove anything... did you even read it?
... what are you talking about? Was the math too hard to understand?
It even says this at the beginning, before all the math:
"According to Bilalić et al. (2009), 96 per cent of the observed differences in performance between the top 100 pairs of male and female players could be attributed to differential participation rates. The first purpose of this comment is to argue that their conclusion was premature and caused by an inappropriate statistical approach."
Do you interpret this somehow differently than what I said in my previous message?
At the end, the author states the following:
"The unexplained gap between the two curves varies between 99 and 170 rating points (mean value over 100 pairs: 124.5)."
This corresponds to the performance difference between male and female players when all participation rate effects are annulled. This is pretty much the current rating difference between FIDE-registered men and women on average (see here); furthermore, it is close to the difference between Judit Polgar at her prime and Garry Kasparov at his prime, but this is not as statistically significant a comparison.
knottele wrote:
“woman by nature are made for reproduction”
Aren't they? 
Uff.. to be honest, I am a bit scandalized, but in a paternalistic manner I will try to further explain my point and I hope you gonna read it. "Aren't they?" No, they aren't. If you say woman are made for reproduction you make a normative statement. That means: Woman’s aim in this world is that of reproduction, in other words: motherhood is their destiny. I am not sure for know if such a statement from an American whose country hosted the beginnings of the great '68 revolution and whose parental generation pushed forward the SEXUAL LIBERATION of woman by getting rid of conservative gender stereotypes is presenting such a mindset, however, NO THEY ARE NOT and I explain you why. 1. Not all woman (or to challenge you:not all persons falling under the socially constructed category of woman) are fertile. So I wonder, if you define a woman's destiny in motherhood, what women who are not fertile, women who by choice abandon their fertility, women in their menopause or woman who simply don't wanna risk their health, their job or their free choice prevent conception are in your eyes?. Are they wrong? Not women? Or against nature? You know what: please give me a definition of your ominous “natural” and please open your mind.
Nov 24, 2014
0
#118
"sexism in chess?"
Sexism exists everywhere else EXCEPT IN CHESS.
Chess is a purely intellectual game.
Unless people actually think that women are less intelligent than men.
knottele wrote:
knottele wrote:
“woman by nature are made for reproduction”
Aren't they?
Uff.. to be honest, I am a bit scandalized, but in a paternalistic manner I will try to further explain my point and I hope you gonna read it. "Aren't they?" No, they aren't. If you say woman are made for reproduction you make a normative statement. That means: Woman’s aim in this world is that of reproduction, in other words: motherhood is their destiny. I am not sure for know if such a statement from an American whose country hosted the beginnings of the great '68 revolution and whose parental generation pushed forward the SEXUAL LIBERATION of woman by getting rid of conservative gender stereotypes is presenting such a mindset, however, NO THEY ARE NOT and I explain you why. 1. Not all woman (or to challenge you:not all persons falling under the socially constructed category of woman) are fertile. So I wonder, if you define a woman's destiny in motherhood, what women who are not fertile, women who by choice abandon their fertility, women in their menopause or woman who simply don't wanna risk their health, their job or their free choice prevent conception are in your eyes?. Are they wrong? Not women? Or against nature? You know what: please give me a definition of your ominous “natural” and please open your mind.
I thought it just meant that women could have a baby. It's also in our nature to have arms. Maybe I misunderstood him, I don't know, but I wouldn't assume he was sexist just based on that tiny post.
In any case I don't think a man or woman is obligated to have kids.
Two different things. I'm physiologically predisposed to poor eyesight not glasses.