English Chess Forum

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Robert Dale wrote:I have read that there is a disproprtionate number of Jewish people amongst top chessplayers. Has that been statistically proven, and if so, any offers on the reasons? Culture? Genetics? I have heard it suggested that the Jewish method of studying the Torah (meticulous analysis, examining every word) is very "chess-like". Any takers for that theory?

It's an interesting theory, and one which would be worth studying. Another plausible theory is that chess has developed during eras where anti-Semitism has been common, which might make it harder for Jewish people to make it in other fields - and thus encourage them to try to make their name in chess.

The reason Jews are disproportionately good at chess, is sad to the nth degree, basically they never integrated with the populations they emigrated to, after being forced to leave Israel by Hadrian.

So because of the psychology of 'in group' and 'out group' they became persecuted and way before the 'holocaust', got persecuted and sometimes got
murdered, basically survival genes were selected for, the Jews that did survive, passed those genes on via inbreeding, it is possible these genes were involved with the ability to play chess.

The ability to play chess, involves an ability for logic, an ability for survival, involves an ability for logic, no matter how ruthless your tribe is to the next tribe and its alternative cultural practices.

PeterTurland wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote:

Robert Dale wrote:I have read that there is a disproprtionate number of Jewish people amongst top chessplayers. Has that been statistically proven, and if so, any offers on the reasons? Culture? Genetics? I have heard it suggested that the Jewish method of studying the Torah (meticulous analysis, examining every word) is very "chess-like". Any takers for that theory?

It's an interesting theory, and one which would be worth studying. Another plausible theory is that chess has developed during eras where anti-Semitism has been common, which might make it harder for Jewish people to make it in other fields - and thus encourage them to try to make their name in chess.

The reason Jews are disproportionately good at chess, is sad to the nth degree, basically they never integrated with the populations they emigrated to, after being forced to leave Israel by Hadrian.

So because of the psychology of 'in group' and 'out group' they became persecuted and way before the 'holocaust', got persecuted and sometimes got
murdered, basically survival genes were selected for, the Jews that did survive, passed those genes on via inbreeding, it is possible these genes were involved with the ability to play chess.

The ability to play chess, involves an ability for logic, an ability for survival, involves an ability for logic, no matter how ruthless your tribe is to the next tribe and its alternative cultural practices.

I'm sorry but that is utter garbage. 1) Jews have not been so isolate as to have evolutionary effect. 2) the length of time has been far too short for evolutionary effects on the scale you are theorising.

There is no way to adequately describe how incorrect, as a matter of fact, the above post is.

Rob Thompson wrote:

PeterTurland wrote: The reason Jews are disproportionately good at chess, is sad to the nth degree, basically they never integrated with the populations they emigrated to, after being forced to leave Israel by Hadrian.

So because of the psychology of 'in group' and 'out group' they became persecuted and way before the 'holocaust', got persecuted and sometimes got
murdered, basically survival genes were selected for, the Jews that did survive, passed those genes on via inbreeding, it is possible these genes were involved with the ability to play chess.

The ability to play chess, involves an ability for logic, an ability for survival, involves an ability for logic, no matter how ruthless your tribe is to the next tribe and its alternative cultural practices.

I'm sorry but that is utter garbage. 1) Jews have not been so isolate as to have evolutionary effect. 2) the length of time has been far too short for evolutionary effects on the scale you are theorising.

There is no way to adequately describe how incorrect, as a matter of fact, the above post is.

While orthodox Jews throughout history tended to try to keep the faith by by procreating within their group,
there were also conversions into Judaism from without, as well as less orthodox Jews simply dropping their
religious attachments and melding into Gentile society, or even by intermarriage with Gentiles, sometimes
keeping some Judaic traditions intact, and sometimes becoming Gentile (like Josephine Sarah Marcus, Wyatt
Earp's post Tombstone "common law" wife), with a lot of grey areas of co-existence in between. When looking
into and discussing ethnic backgrounds with friends and acquaintances over the years, I found that most
supposed "Gentiles" have all kinds of surprisingly interesting ancestral links, not least this Judaic connection.
Don't forget that one of the greatest anti-Semites in history, Adolf Schickelgruber, was part Jewish himself.

George Szaszvari wrote:Don't forget that one of the greatest anti-Semites in history, Adolf Schickelgruber, was part Jewish himself

Actually, there is no hard evidence for this AFAIK.

He *did* have a certain amount of Slavic ancestry, which he found embarrassing enough to have covered up whilst he was alive.

Matt Mackenzie wrote:

George Szaszvari wrote:Don't forget that one of the greatest anti-Semites in history, Adolf Schickelgruber, was part Jewish himself

Actually, there is no hard evidence for this AFAIK.

He *did* have a certain amount of Slavic ancestry, which he found embarrassing enough to have covered up whilst he was alive.

Actually? As far as you know? Hmm. Okay, Hitler's Jewishness is controversial, but IIRC (it was a while back!)
my first acquaintance with this subject was reading Schellenberg's autobiography in the 1960s or 70s about
Reinhard Heydrich's secret files with the potentially explosive dope on Hitler's Jewish ancestry. Apparently
Heydrich had trip wires to machine guns guarding that file....I wonder what happened to the files after Heydrich's
assassination in 1942. Anyway, there is a lot of stuff out there discussing this and here are some more recent (!)
links to chew on...

http://www.lloydthomas.org/1-IsraelTime ... itler.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... art-jewish

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/2 ... 93568.html

Robert Thompson wrote
"1) Why should i believe in something there is no evidence for?"

There are some things that Science cannot explain. How did butterflies evolve? for example. Is it scientific to simply discount the possibly of a creationalist entity?
If you consider the 'multiverse' theories of science which I think most scientists believe in today, then with many many universes to consider isn't it much more likely that in one there exists a supremely powerful entity which one might call God for short?

Martyn Jacobs wrote: Starting from the assumption of god's defined omnipotence, how can you possibly prove his non-existence. ... So, starting from the main assumption about god, you just cannot, disprove logically his existence.

I guess this is the point; you can neither prove nor disprove his existence. You say "I believe he exists, how can you prove he doesn't?" Rob would say "I believe he doesn't exist, how can you prove he does?"

Rob bases his initial assumption on the fact that he can't see any evidence for his existence. Based on what you've written, you base you assumption on seeing things that are unexplained, and thus inserting a figure, called God, whose existence explains these things. By contrast, Rob would explain that by saying "We just don't know enough about these things yet."

Take the case of Madeleine McCann. She disappears years ago; presumed to have been pinched by someone. We don't know what's happened. So how can we explain it? Do we say that we don't know enough about it - specifically, we don't know what happened to her - or do we say that God can explain it? My atheism is precisely for this sort of reason; I believe that unexplained things are only unexplained because we don't know enough about them yet, and we need to keep looking for evidence to answer the questions.

Matthew Turner wrote:Robert Thompson wrote
"1) Why should i believe in something there is no evidence for?"

There are some things that Science cannot explain. How did butterflies evolve? for example. Is it scientific to simply discount the possibly of a creationalist entity?
If you consider the 'multiverse' theories of science which I think most scientists believe in today, then with many many universes to consider isn't it much more likely that in one there exists a supremely powerful entity which one might call God for short?

I don't know. I am not a biologist. However, my ignorance is no basis to invoke some idea of God just to explain it, as then i would be forced to ask: "Where did God come from?" That question is a lot harder to explain than how butterflies.

Martyn Jacobs wrote: Starting from the assumption of god's defined omnipotence, how can you possibly prove his non-existence. ... So, starting from the main assumption about god, you just cannot, disprove logically his existence.

You can't. I can prove anything if I am allowed to make arbitrary assumptions. The inability to prove that something isn't true doesn't prove that it is true.

My cat can fly. I've never seen her fly, but that doesn't matter because you can't prove otherwise. Therefore my cat can fly.

Rob Thompson wrote:

PeterTurland wrote:

The reason Jews are disproportionately good at chess, is sad to the nth degree, basically they never integrated with the populations they emigrated to, after being forced to leave Israel by Hadrian.

So because of the psychology of 'in group' and 'out group' they became persecuted and way before the 'holocaust', got persecuted and sometimes got
murdered, basically survival genes were selected for, the Jews that did survive, passed those genes on via inbreeding, it is possible these genes were involved with the ability to play chess.

The ability to play chess, involves an ability for logic, an ability for survival, involves an ability for logic, no matter how ruthless your tribe is to the next tribe and its alternative cultural practices.

I'm sorry but that is utter garbage. 1) Jews have not been so isolate as to have evolutionary effect. 2) the length of time has been far too short for evolutionary effects on the scale you are theorising.

Perhaps you should go to this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution and correct it, because it appears to disagree with your knowledge of the speed of evolution.

More evidence for how fast evolution is, is all the different breeds of dog we have created, in the space of a few thousand years. The way a particular breed is created, is termed 'line breeding' basically inbreeding by this method accentuates certain features.

Rob Thompson wrote: There is no way to adequately describe how incorrect, as a matter of fact, the above post is.

I'm somewhat mystified by this statement, so we are just supposed to take your word for it, are we? Like all you say is 'a matter of fact'?

PeterTurland wrote:

Rob Thompson wrote:

PeterTurland wrote:

The reason Jews are disproportionately good at chess, is sad to the nth degree, basically they never integrated with the populations they emigrated to, after being forced to leave Israel by Hadrian.

So because of the psychology of 'in group' and 'out group' they became persecuted and way before the 'holocaust', got persecuted and sometimes got
murdered, basically survival genes were selected for, the Jews that did survive, passed those genes on via inbreeding, it is possible these genes were involved with the ability to play chess.

The ability to play chess, involves an ability for logic, an ability for survival, involves an ability for logic, no matter how ruthless your tribe is to the next tribe and its alternative cultural practices.

I'm sorry but that is utter garbage. 1) Jews have not been so isolate as to have evolutionary effect. 2) the length of time has been far too short for evolutionary effects on the scale you are theorising.

Perhaps you should go to this wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution and correct it, because it appears to disagree with your knowledge of the speed of evolution.

More evidence for how fast evolution is, is all the different breeds of dog we have created, in the space of a few thousand years. The way a particular breed is created, is termed 'line breeding' basically inbreeding by this method accentuates certain features.

Peppered moths have changed, yes. What they have not done in that short period of time is diverged from the course of other moths; they were already a distinct species. This is entirely different to what you were suggesting about the Jews, and thus your comparison is irrelevant.

PeterTurland wrote:

Rob Thompson wrote: There is no way to adequately describe how incorrect, as a matter of fact, the above post is.

I'm somewhat mystified by this statement, so we are just supposed to take your word for it, are we? Like all you say is 'a matter of fact'?

Not all i say is a matter of fact, at all. I never attempted to state otherwise. I'm somewhat mystified as to how you managed to leap from a single statement to everything i say.

Robert Thompson wrote,
I don't know. I am not a biologist. However, my ignorance is no basis to invoke some idea of God just to explain it, as then i would be forced to ask: "Where did God come from?" That question is a lot harder to explain than how butterflies.

Of Course it is much easier to explain where a tightly compressed ball of hydrogen came from.

Matthew Turner wrote:Robert Thompson wrote,
I don't know. I am not a biologist. However, my ignorance is no basis to invoke some idea of God just to explain it, as then i would be forced to ask: "Where did God come from?" That question is a lot harder to explain than how butterflies.

Of Course it is much easier to explain where a tightly compressed ball of hydrogen came from.

It is. A tightly pressed ball of hydrogen is a far simpler entity than God would have to be if He were to have any of the powers ascribed it Him

Simon Ansell wrote:
My cat can fly. I've never seen her fly, but that doesn't matter because you can't prove otherwise. Therefore my cat can fly.

Provided it has a passport, unless it can be taken as hand luggage.

Matthew Turner wrote:Robert Thompson wrote
"1) Why should i believe in something there is no evidence for?"

There are some things that Science cannot explain. How did butterflies evolve? for example. Is it scientific to simply discount the possibly of a creationalist entity?
If you consider the 'multiverse' theories of science which I think most scientists believe in today, then with many many universes to consider isn't it much more likely that in one there exists a supremely powerful entity which one might call God for short?

There are many things that science cannot yet explain. Your butterfly example is a strange choice as an example. But my rather uninformed attempt is: By Darwinian evolution in gradual increments by means of natural selection over a long period of time.
No it is not scientific to discount any possibility but then again no scientist would do that. Science is not by definition dogmatic and scientists are therefore always open to review new evidence and change their view accordingly. What makes you think that most scientists believe in the multiverse theory? Certainly most think it a possibility. What do you mean "one might call god for short"? Are you lumping all sorts of different types of gods into the pot?