Why most of the great chess players are jews?

Is this a confession about all of the Jewish guys, you have dated ?

While we can spare each other an argument over " significant", I have to say, the OP's question is sort of like asking, why Russians are so good at chess...

"Once a people who is seperated genetically from all others, "REGARDLESS OF THE REASON", and then begin to breed amongst themselves, seperate themselves genetically."

this was certianly the case thousands of years ago when the language in the next valley was as different from yours as Finnish is from Chinese, and 100 miles was a huge distance, but in the modern world religion is NOT a breeding barrier. The rest of your post about matriarch and patriarch is not scientific.

why most of the great chess players are Jews? cuz nobody else wants to play chess, now that there's so many Jews playing it! With the help of antisemitism they've elimintated much of the competition!

So you think they have already bred away their likeness in these modern times. They tend to stick to themselves. They are against the idea of being diluted or not being accepted by their peers and families. Also, every culture has one to who all of the rest are attributed. What is so unscientific about that ? It is quite obivous and common knowledge. It may not support many humanistic or scientific theories, but it is no less valid simply because, it appears to be a way to get rid of "a problem"...Hitler's scientists tried it...failed too...

Races as we know them are strictly surface features and would not effect one's ability to play chess. And besides it take tens of thousands of years of strict genetic isolation such as different continents or extreme distances to create a racial gene pool. One religious sect living among other humans in a society could not form a distinct racial gene pool. To claim such is to demonstrate one's lack of understanding of the evolutionary process.

I sense a troll thread.

"It may not support many humanistic or scientific theories, but it is no less valid simply because, it appears to be a way to get rid of "a problem"...Hitler's scientists tried it...failed too."

What are you talking about? what problem? they tried what? your post poses more questions than answers.

So things that are distinct all the way to the smallest parts of the DNA are merely surface features...sounds like your idealogies are a bit superficial...take your unscientifically based racisim else where

Anyone who reads or actually has a genuine interest in history type stuff read Aleppo Codex, M Friedman.. Very easy read and excellent material regarding the Ashkenazi Jews.  Arguably the Jewish religions most valued text the twist at the end regarding the fate of the codices and current provenance is worth the days read..

So you and what council decided how long it takes to separate a gene pool to the point of racial seperation ? No one can prove without a doubt that 10,000 years have even passed in human existence. There are no written records to support it. All of the scientific methods used to date things, have no basis for which to prove all possible events and the passage of a said amount of time.

All it takes is seperation and inbreeding for genetic differences to occur...that has already been proven, by science and life's presentation of it...look around...

It doesn't matter if they're Sephardic or Ashkenazi, converts are just as Jewish as everyone else and the Jewish Lifecycle Book makes this clear.  So it doesn't matter if Ashkenazim have no genetic link to Israel, as they were converted in order to remain neutral from Christian and Muslim kingdoms.  If they converted to Christianity they'd be targets for Muslims, and vice versa. 

nameno1had wrote " No one can prove without a doubt that 10,000 years have even passed in human existence. There are no written records to support it."

well that will save me some reading in the future, lol.  Science has proven beyond all measure of certianty that humans have been around longer then 10,000 years.  Unless you are not counting works of stone, clay and cloth.  According to the religous texts I've read inbreading was rampant among the earliest of recorded man... and how did the folks over in Sumatra have such clear knowledge of the outer solar system.  So many questions...  

Show me one piece of scientific evidence that proves that humans have existed for more than 10,000 years, that doesn't have any possible flaw...I have been looking for nearly 30 years for one and still can't find it...

Look harder.

Not only do we have evidence of how long humans existed, but the genetic science and fossil record also trace our lineage at least as far back as a certain common ancestor with rats during the dinosaur period.  There are also many transitional fossils from the monkey we've evolved from to us.  Lucy for example is one such transitional fossil. 

Prove they are over 10,000 years old...prove they are any particular age...

If you try to change the subject to something innocuous, though, staff will be up in here with flamethrowers.

In the old days this could turn into a funny, humorous, non-offensive (except to the morons) thread but now, as you say, all intelligent people should just walk away, nothing to do here.

There is one thing science never accounts for and cant'....

keeping in mind this is a public forum it will be impossible to expound properly.  I myself cannot speak to the exact nature of humanity prior to 10,000 years but do have faith we were here in some capacity.  Asking for a single example is like ripping up the Mona Lisa into 10,000 pieces and saying prove to me this one piece is a part of a great work of art..  I believe in too many things and understand far too little to argue your faith or desire to prove mine.  Best of luck in finding the asnwer you are looking for