Wonder what George's was? :)
Sometimes the lowest IQ's lead us to war.
Why is this game so male-dominated?
Sort:
He didnt though did he! He left it in ruins. Even his choice of ministers was poor. The only ones who had any sort of high IQ was Georing and Georbbels
Ok then your right its off topic...Put it this way..If it were a game of chess he was playing,he certainly lost..
Glad to of helped you get it back on topic!! :o)
mendez1996 wrote:
mykingdomforanos wrote:
males are always best at useless endeavours.
men = first man on the moon,
Only me? We on planet earth all know that chess is for geeks, maybe only you not, because you are the man on the moon.
mendez1996 wrote:
Pelikan_Player wrote:
So the girls only have a better GPA than you because you're not really trying? Got it
lol wheter I am trying or not , still does not change the fact that they placed better than me.
What I'm saying is you cant use the argument that becuase some girls had higher GPA than me means they are the same level as men as a whole.
mendez1996 wrote:
batgirl wrote:
So isn't the inverse also true?
no becuase men's intellectial achievements triumph over females
If men and women tried in equal numbers in equal circumstances through history and males achieve much more, then this is a fine argument.
Your school is a good example of a much better comparison. Boys and girls will have very similar numbers and circumstances. Although GPA is often (IMO) simply a measure of how seriously a person takes school.
Hitler/Bush are very poor examples of male-dominance.
Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great better-choices.
netzach wrote:
Hitler/Bush are very poor examples of male-dominance.
Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great better-choices.
i have a difficult time recognizing male dominance awarded to one man, when his achievements were gained through the backs and brains of others...
Not so fish.
Those two were right in first at the thick of the fighting?
Hitler played with Eva & George went on summer-camp.
nameno1had wrote:
netzach wrote:
Hitler/Bush are very poor examples of male-dominance.
Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great better-choices.
i have a difficult time recognizing male dominance awarded to one man, when his achievements were gained through the backs and brains of others...
This is a chauvinist forum...
Hey Zach..George had his day yesterday..did ya pay homage?
Was busy. Spent 5yrs of my life searching Iraq for weapons-of-mass-destruction. All found was 2 deflated-balloons and some spent fireworks.
conejiux wrote:
This is a chauvinist forum...
you must have missed my post a few pages back....how many male chauvanists does it take to get a date?
netzach wrote:
Not so fish.
Those two were right in first at the thick of the fighting?
Hitler played with Eva & George went on summer-camp.
nameno1had wrote:
netzach wrote:
Hitler/Bush are very poor examples of male-dominance.
Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great better-choices.
i have a difficult time recognizing male dominance awarded to one man, when his achievements were gained through the backs and brains of others...
i am not saying they werent good warriors or leaders...i admire a lone wolf more than a pack....
Agreed Fish.
But you spelled ''masturbation'' wrong a few pages back.
nameno1had wrote:
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....
nameno1had wrote:
conejiux wrote:
This is a chauvinist forum...
you must have missed my post a few pages back....how many male chauvanists does it take to get a date?
Ok. Let me say it again. Some people in this forum are chauvinist...
netzach wrote:
Was busy. Spent 5yrs of my life searching Iraq for weapons-of-mass-destruction. All found was 2 deflated-balloons and some spent fireworks.
Aww! So you missed the party...what a bummer! Im goin out there soon to help build some beach front apartments..Its gonna be the new Benidorm.
Elubas wrote:
I use tons of rational thought. I know what you mean in terms of pattern recognition and calculations, but at the same time it's still often thought and logic that is guiding me to choose certain moves. If I for example consider a knight that is only protected by one pawn, and I'm looking for ways to get that pawn to move or disappear to make the knight unprotected, I think there is a lot deduction going on there. And positional play is, I would have thought, pretty heavily grounded in logic. It's true that patterns guide you to good plans, but you can also usually rationalize the purpose of them.
I would hope chess would be more than just recalling patterns -- then it would be a little depressing to me . Well, bullet and blitz are sort of like that, and they are fun, but if long chess didn't exist I would find it hard to just live off of fast chess if you will.
Sure, but I tried that stuff when I was new too. "How can I get rid of that knight?" "His rook is in a good position, how can I improve my rook / trade off his rook?"
Then you blunder a knight, or you trade off the rook into a lost endgame or a million other bad decisions.
Yeah it's a bit depressing... but I think pattern recognition is a huge part of skill. Mostly the part that happens unconsciously while you're calculating. e.g. when a weaker players says "what about Nb6" and you're thinking "well it's probably just bad, I didn't even bother calculating it" It's not that you looked at it for a moment and rationally ruled it out... you never considered it to begin with. I think the rationality we wrap around good moves / the story line we give games is secondary (and sometimes is more a source of errors than good IMO).
The rationality I do use is pretty basic... I think even kids can think well enough (lol, what am I saying, kids are titled players these days). For example I have X attackers vs Y defenders and X > Y or some such simple thing.
Stevie65 wrote:
netzach wrote:
Was busy. Spent 5yrs of my life searching Iraq for weapons-of-mass-destruction. All found was 2 deflated-balloons and some spent fireworks.
Aww! So you missed the party...what a bummer! Im goin out there soon to help build some beach front apartments..Its gonna be the new Benidorm.
As long as tax-exiles are welcome sounds good!
Savage wrote:
batgirl wrote:
Thanks for the debate
You didn't make any testable claim, you just emoted about how "offended" you were. Hence, no debate.
Well all the males running around are allowed to emote how insecure they are lol. That's what many of these posts emote to me anyway... so much so it's painful.
Megalomaniac's do not make good role-models.