Invisible pieces

[JustinHorton]

And too many people make ludicrous claims, and then get upset when someone points out how ridiculous they are being

Remind us of the prominent events of your journalistic career again

[Tim Spanton]

And too many people make ludicrous claims, and then get upset when someone points out how ridiculous they are being

Remind us of the prominent events of your journalistic career again

Top-class whataboutery

[John Moore]

Well, one might have thought the second part of it at least was difficult for anyone to argue against in good faith.

(the first was indeed provocatively worded, not my usual style on here - but in this case that was fully intentional)

Really - herding people into death camps was fully intentional. Surely you can have been provocative without a reference of that nature.

[Nigel Short]

A summary of recent material - https://chessandmind.com/gender-gap-in- ... pKZvihMWvM

[Tim Spanton]

A summary of recent material - https://chessandmind.com/gender-gap-in- ... pKZvihMWvM

For those who don't manage to get to the end, here is the conclusion:

The gender gap in top chess is not explained by the difference in population sizes, as professor Wei Ji Ma claims. When matching population sizes, the gap remains substantial.
In this article, I have merely attempted to refute the participation rate hypothesis once and for all. My interest was not to determine how large the gap is exactly or what its causes and mechanisms are. It’s well-known that population studies do not show cause and effect. What we can say with great confidence is that men are better than women at chess, in average. Are the differences biological, or are they cultural? Are they due to inherent differences in the wiring of the brains of women and men, as Nigel Short famously argued?[15] Does this mean that men are intellectually superior to or more intelligent than women? These are some of the common questions that will be examined in a future installment.

[JustinHorton]

Who is Alejandro Tello, out of interest?

[JustinHorton]

Incidentally, I notice that a book called Chess and Individual Differences, by Ángel Blanch of the University of Lleida was apparently published last week by Cambridge University Press. Unfortunately, being an academic text it's not cheap, but university-based forum users and people with deeper pockets than mine might like to take a look.

[John Moore]

Angel Blanch has written a lot of stuff relating to performance in chess - see below

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Angel_Blanch

[JustinHorton]

Yeah, I saw that, and I had a flick through what I could see of his book (Look Inside doesn't seem to be operating on UK Amazon, though I could get somewhere on the US version). I believe he's sceptical of the idea that varying participation rates are a full and adequate explanation of the gender gap, though I couldn't access his discussion of other proposed factors. But at least I assume it's a proper academic study, critiquing previous research and prepared to be critiqued in its turn.

[Matt Bridgeman]

This Guardian piece probably encapsulates the media response in general from 2015; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... yers-women

The stereotype threat theory is interesting and David Smerdon was talking about it on national Australian radio just a couple of days ago. As David says maybe this is good news, as it’s psychological and one imagines that can be fixed over time. It was noticeable he avoided all together even mentioning the idea that woman’s brains are different; https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pr ... s/12990704

I think the ‘damaging’ aspect of what Nigel has done is pushed hard an idea that ‘men and woman do have different brains. This is a biological fact.’ There will be male and female chess players out there in the world now believing this is a fact, when at best it’s all very unclear, even 5 years later.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019 ... different/

[Nigel Short]

This Guardian piece probably encapsulates the media response in general from 2015; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... yers-women

The stereotype threat theory is interesting and David Smerdon was talking about it on national Australian radio just a couple of days ago. As David says maybe this is good news, as it’s psychological and one imagines that can be fixed over time. It was noticeable he avoided all together even mentioning the idea that woman’s brains are different; https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pr ... s/12990704

I think the ‘damaging’ aspect of what Nigel has done is pushed hard an idea that ‘men and woman do have different brains. This is a biological fact.’ There will be male and female chess players out there in the world now believing this is a fact, when at best it’s all very unclear, even 5 years later.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019 ... different/

The troll who has done nothing but abuse me incessantly and unapologetically ("I think rudeness is quite justified") now finally acknowledges that, just perhaps, I might be right.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Nigel did you not once describe a fellow GM as ‘morose, jealous and inebriated Danny Gormally’ in a print article? Please do go on Sky News again and tell the world you were right.

[JustinHorton]

The thing is that if we want a discussion about gender differences it needs to be led by two things: science, and respect. It can't be led by pieces such as the one that appeared in New In Chess and it can't be led by people with a decades-long record of misogynist commentary and behaviour. This is basic and shouldn't be hard to avoid, unless you're an editor at New In Chess.

It's also basic that a discussion about women in chess really shouldn't be transformed into a discussion about a man. This can be harder to avoid but still, you really don't want this to be about Nigel Short.He doesn't have anything useful to say on te subject, he's not an appropriate participant in a discussion of the subject and nor is he an appropriate subject of the discussion. What a troll does is to make a discussion about them and their particular inflammatory talking points. In so far as is possible (and it is not always possible) the temptation to feed them should be resisted.

[Tim Spanton]

The thing is that if we want a discussion about gender differences it needs to be led by two things: science, and respect. It can't be led by pieces such as the one that appeared in New In Chess and it can't be led by people with a decades-long record of misogynist commentary and behaviour. This is basic and shouldn't be hard to avoid, unless you're an editor at New In Chess.

It's also basic that a discussion about women in chess really shouldn't be transformed into a discussion about a man. This can be harder to avoid but still, you really don't want this to be about Nigel Short.He doesn't have anything useful to say on te subject, he's not an appropriate participant in a discussion of the subject and nor is he an appropriate subject of the discussion. What a troll does is to make a discussion about them and their particular inflammatory talking points. In so far as is possible (and it is not always possible) the temptation to feed them should be resisted.

That's why I so rarely comment on anything you post.

[JustinHorton]

<shrug>