Not bad!

My bishop to the queen on the left..

---

This sounds like you believe women have to work harder than men to be successful. Do you really think that way or is this another pot stir?

No, it is only a comment on the remarkable amount of time that the Pulgar sisters spent studying chess from an extremely young age.  
There are many areas today where women are equal and treated as equals.  Chess is not one of them, and may never be one of them.

You seem to think that she worked harder than those men she beat (likely you said). Then you said it's also likely that she worked harder than those who replaced her but they still exceeded her, which carries a subtext that those men had some other means to supersede her with a lesser amount of work than she put in (which you don't know). It almost sounds like she achieved so much with her inferior little brain only because of how much harder she worked at it than those more intellectually gifted but certainly lazier men. Ok, maybe not almost.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Although fiction, I would think that women would follow the lead of the character in 'The Queen Gambit' mini-series.  Play whoever, whenever, under equal rules.  That is true equality.

Judit Pulgar is the only woman who has ever been at the top of the world rankings.  
She is entitled to her opinions, but she has had a very exceptional life.  Her dad deliberately made chess her life.  She likely trained and studied for many more hours than the man she replaced at the top of the rankings, and more hours than the men who eventually replaced her at the top. 
So even when we include Pulgar in the analysis, we still see women aren't represented in this area, and the only possible explanations are (a) differences in socialization or (b) differences in brain anatomy.  If it's (a), giving women spaces where they can work to build up skills and confidence before they compete with men makes a lot of sense. If it's (b), nothing will work.  And no one with any kind of rule making authority in Western society today really wants to discuss (b).

So you want affirmative action for women's brains.  

It's silly.  If you want to treat women like they are inferior, then let them have a nice, segregated women-only competition.  Then we can all look down our noses at women, because they are inferior and they admit it.  

But there's no reason to think women have less brain power than men, or less confidence.  I've seen plenty of women playing poker, or chess, and they have loads of confidence and a high level of skill. 

It's long past time to end the women-only chess or poker or any other competition that involves brain power.  Because it just makes the point that women are inherently inferior.

---

No, it is only a comment on the remarkable amount of time that the Pulgar sisters spent studying chess from an extremely young age.  
There are many areas today where women are equal and treated as equals.  Chess is not one of them, and may never be one of them.

You seem to think that she worked harder than those men she beat (likely you said). Then you said it's also likely that she worked harder than those who replaced her but they still exceeded her, which carries a subtext that those men had some other means to supersede her with a lesser amount of work than she put in (which you don't know). It almost sounds like she achieved so much with her inferior little brain only because of how much harder she worked at it than those more intellectually gifted but certainly lazier men. Ok, maybe not almost.

You're drawing that conclusion.  I'm telling you what the evidence says.  She had to work harder.  Whether that is due to female anatomy or due to the social expectations and treatment of females in communist Hungary, she had to work harder at chess than men worked to get to that level.

---

Judit Pulgar is the only woman who has ever been at the top of the world rankings.  
She is entitled to her opinions, but she has had a very exceptional life.  Her dad deliberately made chess her life.  She likely trained and studied for many more hours than the man she replaced at the top of the rankings, and more hours than the men who eventually replaced her at the top. 
So even when we include Pulgar in the analysis, we still see women aren't represented in this area, and the only possible explanations are (a) differences in socialization or (b) differences in brain anatomy.  If it's (a), giving women spaces where they can work to build up skills and confidence before they compete with men makes a lot of sense. If it's (b), nothing will work.  And no one with any kind of rule making authority in Western society today really wants to discuss (b).

So you want affirmative action for women's brains.  

It's silly.  If you want to treat women like they are inferior, then let them have a nice, segregated women-only competition.  Then we can all look down our noses at women, because they are inferior and they admit it.  

But there's no reason to think women have less brain power than men, or less confidence.  I've seen plenty of women playing poker, or chess, and they have loads of confidence and a high level of skill. 

It's long past time to end the women-only chess or poker or any other competition that involves brain power.  Because it just makes the point that women are inherently inferior.

I'm not a woman, and I would not fund a chess tournament because I'm not that interested in chess.  So I want nothing at all in this area.

But I am saying there is a plausible reason for women to want their own tournament.  It could be an affirmative action with the goal of building themselves up to the point of not needing it anymore, or it could be a permanent thing based on a recognition of their different brain anatomy.  Their brain anatomy is different, but no one really knows how those measurable differences map to real world tasks like chess or poker.  And science may never know.

In either case, as long as they want that for themselves, I will not say they shouldn't have it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You seem to think that she worked harder than those men she beat (likely you said). Then you said it's also likely that she worked harder than those who replaced her but they still exceeded her, which carries a subtext that those men had some other means to supersede her with a lesser amount of work than she put in (which you don't know). It almost sounds like she achieved so much with her inferior little brain only because of how much harder she worked at it than those more intellectually gifted but certainly lazier men. Ok, maybe not almost.

You're drawing that conclusion.  I'm telling you what the evidence says.  She had to work harder.  Whether that is due to female anatomy or due to the social expectations and treatment of females in communist Hungary, she had to work harder at chess than men worked to get to that level.

---

So you want affirmative action for women's brains.  

It's silly.  If you want to treat women like they are inferior, then let them have a nice, segregated women-only competition.  Then we can all look down our noses at women, because they are inferior and they admit it.  

But there's no reason to think women have less brain power than men, or less confidence.  I've seen plenty of women playing poker, or chess, and they have loads of confidence and a high level of skill. 

It's long past time to end the women-only chess or poker or any other competition that involves brain power.  Because it just makes the point that women are inherently inferior.

I'm not a woman, and I would not fund a chess tournament because I'm not that interested in chess.  So I want nothing at all in this area.

But I am saying there is a plausible reason for women to want their own tournament.  It could be an affirmative action with the goal of building themselves up to the point of not needing it anymore, or it could be a permanent thing based on a recognition of their different brain anatomy.  Their brain anatomy is different, but no one really knows how those measurable differences map to real world tasks like chess or poker.  And science may never know.

In either case, as long as they want that for themselves, I will not say they shouldn't have it.

You are a complete sexist.  I had no idea.

---

You're drawing that conclusion.  I'm telling you what the evidence says.  She had to work harder.  Whether that is due to female anatomy or due to the social expectations and treatment of females in communist Hungary, she had to work harder at chess than men worked to get to that level.

---

I'm not a woman, and I would not fund a chess tournament because I'm not that interested in chess.  So I want nothing at all in this area.

But I am saying there is a plausible reason for women to want their own tournament.  It could be an affirmative action with the goal of building themselves up to the point of not needing it anymore, or it could be a permanent thing based on a recognition of their different brain anatomy.  Their brain anatomy is different, but no one really knows how those measurable differences map to real world tasks like chess or poker.  And science may never know.

In either case, as long as they want that for themselves, I will not say they shouldn't have it.

You are a complete sexist.  I had no idea.

No he's not, he's just doing his normal thing here.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You're drawing that conclusion.  I'm telling you what the evidence says.  She had to work harder.  Whether that is due to female anatomy or due to the social expectations and treatment of females in communist Hungary, she had to work harder at chess than men worked to get to that level.

---

I'm not a woman, and I would not fund a chess tournament because I'm not that interested in chess.  So I want nothing at all in this area.

But I am saying there is a plausible reason for women to want their own tournament.  It could be an affirmative action with the goal of building themselves up to the point of not needing it anymore, or it could be a permanent thing based on a recognition of their different brain anatomy.  Their brain anatomy is different, but no one really knows how those measurable differences map to real world tasks like chess or poker.  And science may never know.

In either case, as long as they want that for themselves, I will not say they shouldn't have it.

You are a complete sexist.  I had no idea.

You're the one telling a group of women that they shouldn't have something that they enjoy, but I'm the sexist.  Got it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Uhoh.. Nerd fight!

---

You're drawing that conclusion.  I'm telling you what the evidence says.  She had to work harder.  Whether that is due to female anatomy or due to the social expectations and treatment of females in communist Hungary, she had to work harder at chess than men worked to get to that level.

---

I'm not a woman, and I would not fund a chess tournament because I'm not that interested in chess.  So I want nothing at all in this area.

But I am saying there is a plausible reason for women to want their own tournament.  It could be an affirmative action with the goal of building themselves up to the point of not needing it anymore, or it could be a permanent thing based on a recognition of their different brain anatomy.  Their brain anatomy is different, but no one really knows how those measurable differences map to real world tasks like chess or poker.  And science may never know.

In either case, as long as they want that for themselves, I will not say they shouldn't have it.

You are a complete sexist.  I had no idea.

Recognizing inherent differences between men and women does not equal sexism.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

You are a complete sexist.  I had no idea.

You're the one telling a group of women that they shouldn't have something that they enjoy, but I'm the sexist.  Got it.

Well, according to that logic, telling white people they can't have whites only activities is racist.

---

You're the one telling a group of women that they shouldn't have something that they enjoy, but I'm the sexist.  Got it.

Well, according to that logic, telling white people they can't have whites only activities is racist.

There's not really a plausible good reason for white people to want their own sports tournament.
Whites are represented at the top level in all sports.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Well, according to that logic, telling white people they can't have whites only activities is racist.

There's not really a plausible good reason for white people to want their own sports tournament.
Whites are represented at the top level in all sports.

So why are black people disproportionately represented at the top of professional sports?  Do you think there is some inherent difference? 

and if there is, do you think white people would be justified in wanting their own separate sports?  According to you, that would be OK.

How about a white only 100 meter dash?  Do you think white people need a little nurturing and confidence in the 100 m dash?  Just like women need a little nurturing and confidence in chess, according to you, to the point where they need a separate tournament and separate rating system?  

So which one of us is a sexist?  The one who thinks men and women are basically equal in mental ability, or the one who thinks women are inferior?  That would be you.

---

Not bad!

My bishop to the queen on the left..

The one on your left is Judit Polgar, who refused to play in women only tournaments and reached a peak rating of number eight in the world.  She is a real grandmaster not a "women's grandmaster."

---

Not bad!

My bishop to the queen on the left..

The one on your left is Judit Polgar, who refused to play in women only tournaments and reached a peak rating of number eight in the world.  She is a real grandmaster not a "women's grandmaster."

Hawt!

I used to play chess pretty often. Lately, not so much. 

Honestly, I don't mind if men and women have mixed chess tournaments. Why not? 

I think the only sports that should be be gender exclusive are contact and physical sports. 

Men are genuinely much stronger and faster..

But in my experience, women are much more smart and intellectually gifted. They can be more meticulous and detail oriented. 

My 2 pesos..

---

There's not really a plausible good reason for white people to want their own sports tournament.
Whites are represented at the top level in all sports.

So why are black people disproportionately represented at the top of professional sports?  Do you think there is some inherent difference? 

and if there is, do you think white people would be justified in wanting their own separate sports?  According to you, that would be OK.

How about a white only 100 meter dash?  Do you think white people need a little nurturing and confidence in the 100 m dash?  Just like women need a little nurturing and confidence in chess, according to you, to the point where they need a separate tournament and separate rating system?  

So which one of us is a sexist?  The one who thinks men and women are basically equal in mental ability, or the one who thinks women are inferior?  That would be you.

Thatsbait.gif

Pretty much the only sports where you see no whites at the top are sprinting, where you see only people with West African genetics, and distance running, where at least on the men's side they all have East African genetics.  The womens side sees more ethnic diversity. So if this is a problem, it's only a problem in a tiny number of sports.  We have white NBA, NFL, boxing, and other sports players all around.

And if you wanted to "fix" that problem, you'd have to define "white" or perhaps "not African" in some sort of scientifically rigorous way, maybe by genetic markers.  No one wants to do that.  It would be absurd.

This is not at all like a women's chess or poker tournament.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's simple math, fellas.

Also, if anyone here plays chess, I just started learning. I'd love to play some games online and pick up a thing or two.

---

Well, according to that logic, telling white people they can't have whites only activities is racist.

There's not really a plausible good reason for white people to want their own sports tournament.
Whites are represented at the top level in all sports.

If you stopped arguing long enough to actually read Marty's post (admittedly an unlikely possibility), you might notice he didn't mention sports at all, but merely "activities".  Maybe it's baseball, maybe it's bingo.  It could be just a social club.  The nature of the activity is irrelevant.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

There's not really a plausible good reason for white people to want their own sports tournament.
Whites are represented at the top level in all sports.

If you stopped arguing long enough to actually read Marty's post (admittedly an unlikely possibility), you might notice he didn't mention sports at all, but merely "activities".  Maybe it's baseball, maybe it's bingo.  It could be just a social club.  The nature of the activity is irrelevant.

Well that's nitpicking isn't it?
The conversation to that point was exclusive to chess and poker, both of which are sports.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Agree to disagree.

---

https://twitter.com/ProudElephantUS/stat...34NPA&s=19

---