Why is this game so male-dominated?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
Can a man always win against any woman any time?
[COMMENT DELETED]
For those who think that the Soviet chess machine couldn't find any strong women players as candidates from a young age, did it ever occur to you that, when put through chess class, the girls didn't do well simply because, they didn't try ? Due to lack of appeal from chess for them, it clearly explains why they didn't get many candidates and why there aren't many women players in general. As competitive and shrewd as women are, one would think that if they had any interest in it at all, there would be many of them playing it.
Adversely, it would appear that chess is more interesting for boys and men. Are there a slew of Russian women who are die hard chess players but , can't break 1800 ? It doesn't appear as so or there would be less mental masterbation in these forums....
It is true what you are saying they spend too much time texting and talking on their mobile phones and not taking the time to learn better things. They believe that when they have learnt something they don't need to learn anything else.
The OP did a single post, and never returned.
How many times must this same dumb-ass idea do a re-run?
The joke's on everyone here. Sorry to say.
Machitos rule! Yes, indeed. 
I agree with those who say, women are smarter by NOT playing chess at all. Come on chess is for geeks.. We all know that
Apr 23, 2013
0
#192
Elubas wrote:
The term "men" here actually seems to be pretty vague. Some portion of men could be better than some portion of women, and some portion of men could be worse than some portion of women. In fact if you take it literally, I think the statement "Men are better than women at chess" implies that it is a necessity that every man must be better than every woman at chess, because any time a woman is better than a man it would contradict the statement.
That's absolutely ridiculous. No one ever means anything like that when they say that some group is better than some other group at something. You're suggesting that generalities, probabilities, have no meaning and impart no knowledge, which is obviously false.
Apr 23, 2013
0
#193
mendez1996 wrote:
mykingdomforanos wrote:
males are always best at useless endeavours.
men = first man on the moon, invented lighbulb, invented automobile, first man on space, invented airplane, invented telephone, fastest person in the world ( usain bolt ), fastest 5K time, strongest weight lifters, highest IQ
women??? most time wasted on facebook??
A woman proved the theorem, fundamental to theoretical physics, that conservation laws are equivalent to symmetries of a physical system -- Emmy Noether.
Women have sometimes held the record for swimming the English channel.
For a little while in the early 90s, a woman was the youngest grandmaster in history. But this crowd should know that. And, mykingdomforanos, chess is not useless, if only because "Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men [and women] happy."
Apr 23, 2013
0
#194
Savage wrote:
unting for "insinuations" and bloviating amateur psychoanalysis must be much more satisfying than admitting a simple truth you happen not to like.
I didn't "bloviate" anything and there's nothing of psychoanalysis in trying to understand motivation. Truth? What did I say that isn't accurate?
Pelikan_Player wrote:
Think of some more categories...
Serial killers, mass genocide, Wall Street scams (stealing people's money)
Watch Investigation Discovery. There are more female scamers, and serial killers than one might think. Mendez1996 has proven there is at least one female fool. The one who had, and raised him.
How many male chauvanists does it take to get a date.... ?
girls will never play better than boys
DaMaGor wrote:
Elubas wrote:
The term "men" here actually seems to be pretty vague. Some portion of men could be better than some portion of women, and some portion of men could be worse than some portion of women. In fact if you take it literally, I think the statement "Men are better than women at chess" implies that it is a necessity that every man must be better than every woman at chess, because any time a woman is better than a man it would contradict the statement.
That's absolutely ridiculous. No one ever means anything like that when they say that some group is better than some other group at something. You're suggesting that generalities, probabilities, have no meaning and impart no knowledge, which is obviously false.
I would imagine they don't mean that when they use it, but I'm just saying literally that's what the sentence means; just that people are not expressing what they mean with correct language, causing ambiguity.
What you say I am suggesting, I am in fact not suggesting. I think they can impart knowledge, but it's not clear how to apply it. Assuming a generality to be true in a specific situation will in the long run result in more truths than assuming the opposite (that is one thing a generality will tell you, sure). Yet why assume at all? Why claim to know an individual one way or the other over such a limited piece of info? It's unfair to those who actually have desirable characteristics and don't get a chance to show them.
Anyway I had to point it out, because really that classic sentence is rather vague. I would argue people should be a little bit more specific and clear with their sentences when referring to gender and chess, but that's me.
mendez1996 wrote:
Conflagration_Planet, speaking of fools, when you actually reach 900 Blitz & 1000 Standard rating come talk to me. Say whatever you want, I'm ranked 27th in my highschool class out of 800~ students, so
So?
