Oh shut up whip.. was an editing error. I'm on a phone. Now you too?
Why are women not as successful as men in chess?
Sort:
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Hmm. If we're going to go by stereotypes, the last thing I think of when I think of a typical male chess player is a natural born killer who goes for the jugular. lol
It's kind of tricky though. I think that many chess players, for example, are really competitive people (it's hard not to be), at least in activities in which they're interested. But they might be quite passive in real life, not so likely to engage in a physical confrontation. Although I think that's a pretty good combo. Be passionate about your ideas, but not need to hurt your opponent in real life to express them. But yeah I just think it's interesting how chess can be used to express your fierceness in a way that doesn't actually hurt anyone.
ffs man, it was joke.
Sure, that's cool. But I think it was a genuinely interesting thing to talk about -- people can just talk you know :) I guess only I am interested in how chess can be a good way of channeling your internal passion :)
Aww, you're so helpful pointing that out for me!
you know what i like about trump? he never apologizes. some people say that makes him a jerk, i think it's great to never say you're sorry.
exactly, it's better to make a quick rash decision and not apologize than to sit around and think about something just to not do anything. doesn't matter which way you're moving as long as you're moving!
I'll never juggle clubs, would crack my skull no doubt. Bird seed balls offer plenty of relaxation and entertainment for me.
Elubas wrote:
"My IQ is 3 points higher than Kasparov's IQ...so, then, I should have studied chess all my life because I would have ended up better than he did if I put the time in?"
Nope, but more importantly, now we know how awesome your IQ is. And really, that was what the OP was getting at, right? btickler's IQ. :)
IQ is a meaningless number...barring an actual disability, everyone has the potential to be as smart as anyone else. Kasparov's IQ is not even genius level and neither is mine.
Sorry if you feel inadequate ;)...not my fault.
batgirl wrote:
He goes for the juggler...
Ok, so you got me, the sad part is I actually originally spelled it "jugguler", I remember only checking to see if there were 2 gs. ha
Oh, but about my point, I pretty much nailed it. Right?
To sum it up "...There is ZERO room in the game of chess for nurture. Right? ..."
To learn juggling... 1st learn 1 ball, then 2
3 will become easy
4 is difficult, 5 is easier.
You are going to ask md.... ?
How is 1 ball juggled?
When you learn the technique
It will become clear.
BattleChessGN18 wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
stuzzicadenti wrote:
yeah it sound like a excuse!!
It is. Anti-sexists are mosly perfectly happy with admitting physical gender differences in various performances at peak level, for instance wwightlifting, for double reasons; the first one being that that it's very very hard to work around those, you have to make a LOT of silly ad-hod excused to make that fly, and secondly, because physical prowess doesn't rank so high on their value scale of abilities so they are able to concede that one and accept the "loss" since it is minor.
But mental abilities they rank high, and, strangely, chess is ranked so highly that they don't want no matter what to accept that biology has an influence on peak chess performance.
So then they have to deny that biology influences chess, and then the ad-hoccing and excuses start.
They have to deny (by implication) that the brain is part of the body and somehow magically sealed off from biological influences, hormones for instance; this they can get away with because they mostly are completely ignorant of biology.
The brain is just an organ like lungs or liver, it's inside the body and is made up of cells and tissue. It's not made of magical fairy dust. The brain is a biological organ, and since men and women have different biology (hormonewise for instance) we will be different for many things. Sometimes women brains are better at a task, sometimes men brains. Sometimes we are the same.
It doesn't matter one whiff though for any individual if his/hers genders brain is on the average worse than the other gender. You can compensate by training better and also if you are invidually especially gifted.
They THINK that if you say "men's brains are on average better at learnng chess than women brains", than you have to ban women from chess or scorn them or whatever it is they imagine. It's just nonsense. Nobody prevents women from doing, say, long distance running because men on the average are better at it. It's not a problem the genders are different.
The difference chesswise is probably a lot smaller in chess than in say weightlifting or boxing and such. Doesn' mean it isn't there.
And thus, my underground devils advocate experiment was a complete success.
People like you prooved me right.
Here's how it played:
I took on the position that I in fact agree little with; because, like you, I too believe that there are certain structural brain differences that may influence how men may accelerate faster than women in chess.
You see, weeks ago, when I expressed the opinion that gay men may not be "as successful" as straight men in chess (more accurately, I said gay men don't generally accelerate at it as fast), already, people jump to certain conclusions about me "being political" or "extrapolating research"; that "little has shown any actual difference between brain strutures that could apply to chess-thinking ability." People were all down my throat about how my "hastefully-formed" opinion about gay vs. straight men was groundless. I think some of them even tried to accuse me of some form of "homophobia".
I then wondered: would people feel the same if I bring up neurological differences between (hetero) men and women? Because, after alll, they do exist. (And, you admit to it, too.) They didn't sound so sure of themselves regarding their "extrapolating research" rebuttal anymore. It got me thinking. Thus, the experiment was born.
People in general seem to mind a whole lot less when we talk about brain differences between men and women in chess versus such difference between heterosexual men and homosexual men in chess. Again, my loose undergound experiment prooved just this with how, already in less than a few hours, two members (one being you) flagrantly oppposed my "strawman" argument about women being no different in chess; however sarcastic and nonsensical.
Already, you associated me with the "non-sexist" group, and little people seem ready to oppose you on that. All the same, people weren't ready to validate my bringing up the difference between gay and straight men; and almost labeled me homophobic.
See? I was right.
Here was my original assertion about gay vs. straight men in chess:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-am-gay-so-are-there-any-other-gay-chess-players-like-me?page=3 (post #41)
Here were some of the responses I received:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-am-gay-so-are-there-any-other-gay-chess-players-like-me?page=4 (posts #66 and 68 by MorraMeister)
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-am-gay-so-are-there-any-other-gay-chess-players-like-me?page=26 (post #511 by YureeSystem: "I'm not sure where you got your information from..."; Yuree's bringing up his personal experience with strong gay chess players in a more benign manner made his post more likeeable, but nevertheless, he too wasn't ready to see validity in my point about gay people; surely, however, my bringing up strong women chess players was a part of my "strawman"? But see, no one confronted Yuree on his "strawman". See?)
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-am-gay-so-are-there-any-other-gay-chess-players-like-me?page=27 (post #521; this member, in fact, took on the position of the "anti-sexists" as I was doing in my experiment here!)
Again i find myself in the midst of an eleborate scheme that I cannot make heads nor tails of! Why does this always happen on this forum!
I read some of this raspberry.. but when I got to the "men are better at long distance running than woman" ,I knew you are just winging it, making things up as you go.
The fact is, and we'll documented by verifiable results and physiological testing, woman are quite superior to men when it comes to endurance racing.
mdinnerspace wrote:
I read some of this raspberry.. but when I got to the "men are better at long distance running than woman" ,I knew you are just winging it, making things up as you go.
The fact is, and we'll documented by verifiable results and physiological testing, woman are quite superior to men when it comes to endurance racing.
The fact is that the world record in marathon is help by a man, and this seems to contradict that women are better at endurance running. Since it would seem to me the women would hold the world record if they were running faster, as you contend they are.
Raspberry... a marathon is not long distance.
Endurance racing, 100 miles + is.
Woman excell
A marathon is 2 hours, nothing about endurance
Woman's times in the marathon though, compare quite favorably to men, when compared to shorter distances.
It should be possible to design a sport that women would be best at, if you designed it to use esp. the things women are better at. In all fairness, all sports are designed by men.
A woman is holding an all-gender world record in archery btw. Sara Lopez from Colombia. Was also my impression from doing archery for a while that there was no gender difference in that sport.
Bar that women with big breasts cant do it because it interferes with the arrow, but the same goes for men sporting man boobs lol.
Wouldn't that be a "scary" script for a Hollywood movie? A master chess player who plans and executes his murders, one by one, a weak pawn, the Bishop and a English Knight, and as he plans the demise of the King and Queen, the heroine detective saves the day!