English Chess Forum

This thread is for discussing the following article:

"Chess gender debate in the international press"
http://en.chessbase.com/post/chess-gend ... onal-press

Heh-heh! I love it. Great fun!

M. Winther

Mats Winther wrote:This thread is for discussing the following article:

"Chess gender debate in the international press"
http://en.chessbase.com/post/chess-gend ... onal-press

Heh-heh! I love it. Great fun!

M. Winther

Unless you are female

Nigel never dips a foot in the water does he.

Is everyone called Nigel an unbearable arse?

Surely it's just because they're too busy cleaning behind the fridge?

You've no doubt heard the one about why second hand female brains cost less than male ones. The female ones have been used, whereas the male ones remain in mint condition.

I reckon Nigel makes these calculated un-PC comments every now and then, for his own amusement and to grab a few headlines, but yes you can see how his particular brand of humour could, has and will cause offence. I usually find him quite entertaining myself, if you take him with a pinch of salt.

A more pressing question - particularly in England - might be why it is that continuing the game beyond junior levels becomes so much less appealing for females than for males. I don't think nearly enough thought and effort is put into this.

Well, a lot of male juniors drop out too (indeed, far too many of them)

There are fewer female players to start with so it is even more noticeable with them?

Dewi Jones wrote:Is everyone called Nigel an unbearable arse?

To answer a question with a question -

Does everyone called Nigella have a bootiful one?

In chess Judith Polgar is a rare exception that proves a rule about the nurture of females but not their nature.

It is a question of biology, simply. Boys at middle school and early teenage spend much time in their boy's room and build model airplanes, or whatever. So they can spend time with a chess board, too. (That's what I did, studying Morphy's games. As a result, I have always been a strong club player.) Girls, however, are more interested in socializing. These facts are well-known. Boys are often much easier to deal with for their parents, whereas girls tend to be more difficult--arguing with their parents; staying out at nights, etc. Since boys have this autonomous character and are capable of "self-enployment", they are prone to improve their talents from an early age. A lonely girl is headed for psychic problems, whereas a boy benefits from loneliness. Today, a girl can socialize from home, too, which means that they spend all their time on social networks. They wake up in the middle of the night to look at text messages on the mobile phone.

This biological difference explains why men take the lead in all creative professions. The capacity of being alone, devoted to a hobby, or studying intently, is paramount for the development of diverse skills, including artistic skills. Although adult women often develop such a capacity, to a degree, the window for developing a strong passion for creative work is closed, which means that they cannot reach excellence. You must love to spend time in isolation, cultivating your skills. Women, generally, have no fondness for this, but they do it on account of society's demands.

This tendency to be a "free agent" is a central factor of European psychology, so it also explains ethnic differences of creativity. Arabs and Africans lag behind white people in branches of science, art, etc. They don't like to spend time alone in a room, but prefer to socialize. They are always "chatting". Many Third World immigrants to Sweden find it unbearable to study a dictionary and learn Swedish words. It is perplexing, because it takes a few days for a European man to acquire sufficient language skills in any language (after all, correct grammar is not essential). He just sits down in solitude and studies a dictionary. If this capacity for studious solitude is developed in early years, it brings great advantages.

M. Winther

If the above is a joke it is not a very funny one.

Matt Mackenzie wrote:Well, a lot of male juniors drop out too (indeed, far too many of them)

There are fewer female players to start with so it is even more noticeable with them?

Perhaps; I guess it would be possible to do an age / gender analysis of the grading database to get a rough idea (though obviously a lot of junior activity wouldn't show). Analysis for other countries would be interesting also, but as much less FIDE rated chess is played in England, meaningful comparison might be tricky.

Mats Winther wrote:It is a question of biology, simply.

...he says, and then lists a whole load of stuff that is cultural and not biological in nature. Do you ever read what you yourself have written?

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Mats Winther wrote:It is a question of biology, simply.

...he says, and then lists a whole load of stuff that is cultural and not biological in nature. Do you ever read what you yourself have written?

No, it is not cultural. There is no evidence that parents foster their children to behave in these different ways. They don't tell their son to spend time in his boy's room, absorbed in his hobby. Nor do they tell their daughter to chatter on the telephone for hours on end.

Mats

John McKenna wrote:
In chess Judith Polgar is a rare exception that proves a rule about the nurture of females but not their nature.

what rule have you used Judit Polgar to [archaic]prove[/archaic] [modern]test[/modern]?

(You may be confusing the archaic 'proving a rule' with the modern meaning of 'prove.'

eg using the term with its original meaning I might say "I'm looking for an exception to prove the rule that Nigel Short cannot be beaten by a woman."