batgirl wrote:
Why has it taken so long for someone to bring this topic up?
lol. 
Why Woman Grandmaster?
Sort:
0110001101101000 wrote:
I've said this before, but as I see it, a small advantage in spacial skill isn't at all a convincing argument for a superiority in chess.
Differences in chess ability are practically never characterized as being due to visualization skills by anyone above a beginner level. Grandmasters are famous for commenting that they do not do deep calculations most of the time, and can find the best moves and plans by feel. Practically everyone will speak on pattern recognition as being the source of skill.
One gender may be better equipped mentally for chess, but until more women participate, it's not clear which gender that is.
In chess it's possible that pattern recognition is essentially the same thing as calculation.
Jan 8, 2016
0
#64
ChastityMoon wrote:
"If women did have the same capacity as men in chess for instance there would be a lot more master and grandmaster equivalents."
Pure ignorance. Much fewer women play chess. Speak in percentages, about which you likely know nothing.
Good point about percentages.....but then you provide none yourself for your forthcoming opinions!
Might as well claim if English did have the same capacity as Danish in chess there would be an English world champion.
prodigies are hardly comparable to the typical chess player. These can come about from any country.
There are countless women on chess.com alone that would grind you into quivering dust over the chess board so what inferences do you draw from their superiority over you?
Any statistics for this generalisation that woman players on chess.com would beat me? I VERY rarely lose to a feamle player. In fact over the board I haven't, the strongest of which was Susan Lalic (her surname at the time when married to GM Bogdan Lalic. She was over 2400 ELO at the time!) I drew with her.
A woman has a collection of talents that as a whole make her a far superior creature for survival than the average men. Their ability to function at the high level they do under the most severe conditions of suffering far surpasses what most men are capable of.
Completely subjective and you provide no analysis or stats for this....
Were it not for these attributes the human race would never have survived through low points of its development on the planet.
Surprisingly I agree with you on this point.
You making chess the pivot point of all these sweeping generalities about women is one example of the crippling impact of male ego when applied to anything but being the brute who did the fighting, the hunting, and...well that's just about it. When it came to the gathering the women suffered through much of that part of it too.
My comment about women applied to a number of real wolrd experiences I have had with women I have known. It also included a few examples of a womans distinct advantages that I have come across.
You will notice I used pink, probably your favourite color 
Also if you want to challenge me to a few games, feel free to. I will not even take piece odds 
I VERY rarely lose to a feamle player.
My guess would be that a man like you seldom if ever plays females primarily because females are a rare occurrence in your experience. Something about a kind repugnance that radiates from you. When skanks are all you can attract you'll naturally develop a poorer opinion than women overall deserve.
Your record on chess.com suggests you are a blowhard.
Jan 8, 2016
0
#66
ChastityMoon wrote:
I VERY rarely lose to a feamle player.
My guess would be that a man like you seldom if ever plays females primarily because females are a rare occurrence in your experience. Something about a kind repugnance that radiates from you. When skanks are all you can attract you'll naturally develop a poorer opinion than women overall deserve.
Your record on chess.com suggests you are a blowhard.
not at all Chastity.....I have no anti female attitude....and I'm straight, so like them even more
I joined chess.com (again) only a couple of days ago and have not played any games, but dont let that stop you making a stupid assessment of my play based on NO games played...lol.
I've played about 6 decent female chess players OTB, as in over 2000 level and haven't lost, although I got lucky in one game I should have lost.
Why dont you put your bias aside and challenge me (even unrated) and we shall see if you're one of the female players that buck the trend 
Or, as the case may be, whether they're just trying to shut the other side up by implying they're only bitter because they can't get laid. Avoids all that tedious discussion about actual facts.
women´s problem before a game is they are more worried about the make up or the clothes than in playing chess. On the game many of them like to stare you , i don´t know why, maybe they believe in psycology and not in good moves like Fischer used to believe.
my sister is lesbian and she is an exception , since she was pretty young she wanted be a man .
you don´t need t0 bet, she is a macho woman. i don´t believe in genders, i´m the robot of the family , because the genders roles weaken your perception of reality.
Jan 8, 2016
0
#71
joyntjezebel wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
I've said this before, but as I see it, a small advantage in spacial skill isn't at all a convincing argument for a superiority in chess.
Differences in chess ability are practically never characterized as being due to visualization skills by anyone above a beginner level. Grandmasters are famous for commenting that they do not do deep calculations most of the time, and can find the best moves and plans by feel. Practically everyone will speak on pattern recognition as being the source of skill.
Despite the fact Iam disagreeing with some of what you say, your post is intelligent and interesting imho. I recall reading somewhere that top chess players didn't have massive IQs generally, but had high spatial intelligence.
And GMs do calculate, not everything to be sure but they do need to calculate and do it accurately. And there is a lot of variability in how much GMs calculate.
In a population, a small advantage is something like spatial intelligence can explain a lot more than it does in an individual.
Thanks. It's true I'm stretching it at least a little here. It's a fact GMs calculate less over the course of a whole game... but when calculation is needed, of course they can visualize more moves and more clearly.
But I think it's also true the other side is stretching a bit. Rotating 3d imagines and folding shapes to form other shapes is, IMO, a lot more challenging and specialized than visualizing a future position on the board. I also think chess visualization is very much trainable.
Nearly all "good" players start young. So I think among women who started as... well women (not girls) we might expect some kind of disadvantage compared to men who didn't start as boys. Between male and female children I wouldn't expect it to matter... unfortunately not enough women play chess so it's hard to say beyond speculation.
Jan 8, 2016
0
#72
Fiveofswords wrote:
Doverblitzboy wrote:
ChastityMoon wrote:
I VERY rarely lose to a feamle player.
My guess would be that a man like you seldom if ever plays females primarily because females are a rare occurrence in your experience. Something about a kind repugnance that radiates from you. When skanks are all you can attract you'll naturally develop a poorer opinion than women overall deserve.
Your record on chess.com suggests you are a blowhard.
not at all Chastity.....I have no anti female attitude....and I'm straight, so like them even more
I joined chess.com (again) only a couple of days ago and have not played any games, but dont let that stop you making a stupid assessment of my play based on NO games played...lol.
I've played about 6 decent female chess players OTB, as in over 2000 level and haven't lost, although I got lucky in one game I should have lost.
Why dont you put your bias aside and challenge me (even unrated) and we shall see if you're one of the female players that buck the trend
since you seem to be aware that it means nothing for one human to rarely lose a chess game against a female...why even mention it? i wonder if its simply for attention or something :p.
If you read the posts properly between Chastity and myself, then the reason why I mention it is because she stated I would be crushed by lots of females, when the reality for me is quite the opposite regardless of the strength I have played.
However, in my vast experience OTB over 30 years, I have seldom played many strong female players. There does seem to be a big gap (in UK chess at least) between very average players and then the titled ones, notwithstanding the fact that because there are so few of them, the chances to be drawn against them is much smaller.
0110001101101000 wrote:
Thanks. It's true I'm stretching it at least a little here. It's a fact GMs calculate less over the course of a whole game... but when calculation is needed, of course they can visualize more moves and more clearly.
But I think it's also true the other side is stretching a bit. Rotating 3d imagines and folding shapes to form other shapes is, IMO, a lot more challenging and specialized than visualizing a future position on the board. I also think chess visualization is very much trainable.
Nearly all "good" players start young. So I think among women who started as... well women (not girls) we might expect some kind of disadvantage compared to men who didn't start as boys. Between male and female children I wouldn't expect it to matter... unfortunately not enough women play chess so it's hard to say beyond speculation.
Oh I agree chess visualisation is trainable.
I was a chess coach for 2 years training juniors. And I was sometimes a little horrified at the way the kids would play like we had not told them a thing. Steve, who ran the club and used to be a very good player said he thought the brain wasn't developed enough to understand chess until around 12.
Which leads to a very interesting question, what about all those prodigies who can play better than most adults at 12 or younger? I lost a game to [now] GM Smerdon when he was 12, I had beaten him a year earlier, so I kind of have a 50% record against the GM, and he could certainly play very well then.
Yes, really strong players start young and get proper coaching young.
Back to gender differences, men tend to be more single minded. Women are on average markedly more altruistic, which shows up in career choice. To get anywhere in world chess you need to dedicate yourself to chess very seriously indeed. This may have more to do with there only ever having been one world class female player than spatial intelligence.
Jan 8, 2016
0
#74
joyntjezebel wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Thanks. It's true I'm stretching it at least a little here. It's a fact GMs calculate less over the course of a whole game... but when calculation is needed, of course they can visualize more moves and more clearly.
But I think it's also true the other side is stretching a bit. Rotating 3d imagines and folding shapes to form other shapes is, IMO, a lot more challenging and specialized than visualizing a future position on the board. I also think chess visualization is very much trainable.
Nearly all "good" players start young. So I think among women who started as... well women (not girls) we might expect some kind of disadvantage compared to men who didn't start as boys. Between male and female children I wouldn't expect it to matter... unfortunately not enough women play chess so it's hard to say beyond speculation.
Oh I agree chess visualisation is trainable.
I was a chess coach for 2 years training juniors. And I was sometimes a little horrified at the way the kids would play like we had not told them a thing. Steve, who ran the club and used to be a very good player said he thought the brain wasn't developed enough to understand chess until around 12.
Which leads to a very interesting question, what about all those prodigies who can play better than most adults at 12 or younger? I lost a game to [now] GM Smerdon when he was 12, I had beaten him a year earlier, so I kind of have a 50% record against the GM, and he could certainly play very well then.
Yes, really strong players start young and get proper coaching young.
Back to gender differences, men tend to be more single minded. Women are on average markedly more altruistic, which shows up in career choice. To get anywhere in world chess you need to dedicate yourself to chess very seriously indeed. This may have more to do with there only ever having been one world class female player than spatial intelligence.
he wasn't a GM at 12 so therefore you do not have a 50% record against a GM....LMAO
He did beat both of Australia's [then] GMs in the same tournament at age 15, he could play.
I think sexism is bad and hurts everyone. For example, I'm a sexist, and so I can't get a girlfriend. Now who is supposed to make me dinner?
yu can get a girlfriend but fr0m other countries which are not contaminated or manipulated by this prefabricated movements.
Jan 8, 2016
0
#78
SJFG wrote:
Women can earn normal titles, just like anyone else. If a WGM has a rating of over 2500 but not the GM title, she probably hasn't earned the required norms for a GM title, which are different from a WGM title.
So why womens titles? I haven't looked into why they made them, but I'm guessing it's to encourage more women to play chess. I really think people over think it way too much.
Overthink it way too much? What a horrible sentence.
joyntjezebel wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Thanks. It's true I'm stretching it at least a little here. It's a fact GMs calculate less over the course of a whole game... but when calculation is needed, of course they can visualize more moves and more clearly.
But I think it's also true the other side is stretching a bit. Rotating 3d imagines and folding shapes to form other shapes is, IMO, a lot more challenging and specialized than visualizing a future position on the board. I also think chess visualization is very much trainable.
Nearly all "good" players start young. So I think among women who started as... well women (not girls) we might expect some kind of disadvantage compared to men who didn't start as boys. Between male and female children I wouldn't expect it to matter... unfortunately not enough women play chess so it's hard to say beyond speculation.
Oh I agree chess visualisation is trainable.
I was a chess coach for 2 years training juniors. And I was sometimes a little horrified at the way the kids would play like we had not told them a thing. Steve, who ran the club and used to be a very good player said he thought the brain wasn't developed enough to understand chess until around 12.
Which leads to a very interesting question, what about all those prodigies who can play better than most adults at 12 or younger? I lost a game to [now] GM Smerdon when he was 12, I had beaten him a year earlier, so I kind of have a 50% record against the GM, and he could certainly play very well then.
Yes, really strong players start young and get proper coaching young.
Back to gender differences, men tend to be more single minded. Women are on average markedly more altruistic, which shows up in career choice. To get anywhere in world chess you need to dedicate yourself to chess very seriously indeed. This may have more to do with there only ever having been one world class female player than spatial intelligence.
Could we please stop with all these generalizations about women? I'm talking even to schillenger who said women work better in groups. Probably he's never seen women in an office.
It seems that because men seem to excel in some fields, we need to "balance it out" giving other good characteristics to women. Funnily enough, the characteristics that we give to women to make them feel happy and being politically correct just can't be measured.
In things that can be measured men dominate women every time, all the time. On average of course.
Now, I would not go as far as saying that women are less intelligent, however they are clearly behind in pretty much all fields that require some brainpower. If you look at degrees in stuff like IT, engineering, math, etc. it's all men. Women tend to do Mickey Mouse degrees and then they think they get paid less than men because of gender discrimination. Fun fact: no feminist has ever opened an economics book.
If there are so few women who play chess there can be only two possible explanations.
1) They are less intelligent.
2) They culturally give less weight to intellectual endeavour.
Fkey wrote:
Firsty you have have to prove that there is a direct link between intelligence and chess,
If that were the case Einstein would have been an incredible chess player.
He was not.
If your second point has any validity then one must wait until "intellectual endeavour" is seen as culturally desirable for women before one can make a reasoned judgement.
I think the link between chess and intelligence is unquestionable. Chess requires brainpower (for calculating, and for studying). The more brainpower you have, the better you'll be at chess ceteris paribus.
Einsten or Bill Gates (who lost against Carlsen in few moves) don't prove the opposite. These people simply didn't dedicate time to chess, they preferred to employ their intelligence in something a tiny bit more important. But let's say these guys spent the same time and effort in chess that *I* did: they would be so much stronger than me.
I've said this before, but as I see it, a small advantage in spacial skill isn't at all a convincing argument for a superiority in chess.
Differences in chess ability are practically never characterized as being due to visualization skills by anyone above a beginner level. Grandmasters are famous for commenting that they do not do deep calculations most of the time, and can find the best moves and plans by feel. Practically everyone will speak on pattern recognition as being the source of skill.
Despite the fact Iam disagreeing with some of what you say, your post is intelligent and interesting imho. I recall reading somewhere that top chess players didn't have massive IQs generally, but had high spatial intelligence.
And GMs do calculate, not everything to be sure but they do need to calculate and do it accurately. And there is a lot of variability in how much GMs calculate.
In a population, a small advantage is something like spatial intelligence can explain a lot more than it does in an individual.