still we are looking for gender differences? there aren't.its just a matter of numbers. en.chessbase.com/post/what-gender-gap-in-chess
Fischer was right.
Cry me a river, but anytime a woman manages to win the Classical Chess Championship, I will take back my word.
So to the OP, please instead of writing angry articles, go practice your chess and then beat Carlsen.
By the way, do you know why Fischer was right? Because his IQ was probably double that of yours OP.
Cry me a river, but anytime a woman manages to win the Classical Chess Championship, I will take back my word.
So to the OP, please instead of writing angry articles, go practice your chess and then beat Carlsen.
By the way, do you know why Fischer was right? Because his IQ was probably double that of yours OP.
Thank you for taking the time to write this article. It's extremely clear and necessary. The amount of blatant sexism and dismissal in these comments are proof enough of that.
#477 supplemental:
en.chessbase.com/post/what-were-the-odds-of-hou-yifan-s-pairings-in-2017
In the Isle of Man Open (2017), an Indian player (Adhiban Baskaran) faced 6 other Indians.
So, by that logic, Indians are also discriminated against in chess.
en.chessbase.com/post/what-were-the-odds-of-hou-yifan-s-pairings-in-2017
In the Isle of Man Open (2017), an Indian player (Adhiban Baskaran) faced 6 other Indians.
So, by that logic, Indians are also discriminated against in chess.
the author of that article is full of excuses. I'd be embarrassed to make such claims.
i guess the author is used to people pitying her.
i guess the author is used to people pitying her.
"Women don’t play chess, and when they do, they play badly."
When I read this sentence, my first thought was: oh, sexist b*llsh*t again; and self contradictory: if women do not play ever, how can you know they play badly? Looking at the list of female grandmasters, it is obviously total rubbish.
I guess, it is a deliberate provocation of the author.
Requiring chess as a representation of an ancient battle, my assumption, why less females play, is the same why males have a higher affinity for performing military conflicts: something in their cerebral structure causes it, a result of evolutionary processes. So males can act out this affinity by playing chess, commanding units, destroying a hostile army, without shedding blood.
(btw: I am male, not a feminist, but realist.)
When I read this sentence, my first thought was: oh, sexist b*llsh*t again; and self contradictory: if women do not play ever, how can you know they play badly? Looking at the list of female grandmasters, it is obviously total rubbish.
I guess, it is a deliberate provocation of the author.
Requiring chess as a representation of an ancient battle, my assumption, why less females play, is the same why males have a higher affinity for performing military conflicts: something in their cerebral structure causes it, a result of evolutionary processes. So males can act out this affinity by playing chess, commanding units, destroying a hostile army, without shedding blood.
(btw: I am male, not a feminist, but realist.)
Science might have disproved the female brain nonsense, but 5 years on Nigel Short is still doubling down on his misinformation. What a dreadful dinosaur! From October this year;
lifestyle.livemint.com/news/talking-point/-i-stand-by-it-british-grandmaster-nigel-short-on-his-sexist-remarks-on-women-s-chess-111602527219695.html
The the sane take on what simply is a numbers game, Hikaru Nakamura is on the money; www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ZdlbKVU7Y
lifestyle.livemint.com/news/talking-point/-i-stand-by-it-british-grandmaster-nigel-short-on-his-sexist-remarks-on-women-s-chess-111602527219695.html
The the sane take on what simply is a numbers game, Hikaru Nakamura is on the money; www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ZdlbKVU7Y
Very clean, new and nice article, not at all biased respecting the single-minded political trends of recent years. Sure someday we will see Carlsen failing a bishop+knight mate.
youtu.be/YFF5ibgB6eA
youtu.be/YFF5ibgB6eA
I'm ashamed at the comments left on this article. And before you misognists start on me, remember where you came from! I taught my daughter chess, and she is good at it, but the fact that she does not spend the same time at it as me, maybe because it's not as cool as other things. Lay off the women okay, your mother protected you for nine months before you came into the world. Like I said remember where you came from!?!
@clousems I'm glad to have the opportunity to talk directly to the "official representative" of capitalism on this website.
And I would like to start with what you said : "The real reason I'm posting here, though, is because I am contractually obligated to appear and defend free-market economics whenever a forum includes three or more instances of "capitalism". "
No need to even speak about communism, just about capitalism, and it's already out of what is allowed. That's what our "democracies" are about. We can discuss about whatever we want inside the capitalism system, but nothing outside.
Questioning capitalism is not permitted. Which is quite of a problem to really determine if it's a good system.
Even if it's not what you meant, that's the reality in western capitalist "democracies".
Now about the possibility of democracy (real democracy) in a communist system.
The communism, is by definition, a system in which the government owns and thus control the means of production (as opposed to the capitalism, in which the means of production are private).
The democracy, is by definition, a system in which the whole population choose and control (or is directly) the government.
The combination of both, which I call auto-government, thus ensure that the whole population is controlling the whole society, allowing to decide of it's future. It's the only way to have this control, and thus a real democratic system, in the sense that the population is deciding of it's future.
And it's possible. The Zapatist movement is an enduring example of it. What is complicated to achieve is a fully democratic transition from the capitalist "democracy" to a non capitalist real democracy.
So no, you don't "have to take into account that these decisions are typically made by a small group of people who don't suffer their costs". It's possible otherwise.
Now I would like to discuss this wonderful phrase : "Sure, you can enforce certain "progressive" economic policies in socialism, but then you are penalizing all of the groups who don't benefit from the policy."
Ahem.
Well, in a way, the capitalism, or at least the neo-liberal capitalism, is socialism for the rich, and free market for the poor.
You know, all the helps given for no counterpart to companies and banks during economical crises and so on...
No need to say more about it. What you said is just or total ignorance, or simply a lie. And no, capitalism is in no way "discouraging the persistence of inequality".
About starvation ( @thomassowell123 ). It's not an exclusivity of communism. Though there has been starvation in the USSR, for instance under Stalin, the Great Famine, in Ireland from 1845 to 1849, is a great example of starvation directly caused by the capitalism ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) ).
In general, starvation is essentially due to exterior factors. The first of them being war. When a country which decided to switch to communism suffers a war (or also heavy economical sanction) from other (capitalist) countries refusing it to leave capitalism, it obviously makes things much harder and can lead to starvation. And the responsible is not communism. It's war. Coming from capitalists states. And I'm not inventing anything. Occidental countries led a war against Russia in 1917, not mainly because it decided to conclude a peace treaty with Germany, but because it decided to switch to communism.
Of course all this is make worse in a very poor country like Russia was at the time.
Also about environmental problems, which are nowadays an emergency.
In capitalism, since the property of the means of production is private (as well as many other things), the class which owns those means, call it whatever you want, but since it's its name, I will say the bourgeoisie, is de facto have an incredibly wide control other the society. And tends to prevent all what goes against its interests. Namely: increasing its power and fortune (at least it's what they think is in their interest).
De-growth, or at least, the stop of growth, which, no matter what, is needed to solve those problems (energy doesn't appear out of nowhere, no need to ask scientists to do that), goes against those interests. Which implies there is no hope to make the bourgeoisie accept it. Which means it's not possible to solve the environmental problems we have inside the capitalism.
I wrote all this hoping that your mistake comes from ignorance. If it's due to stupidity, I don't know what I can do about it. And if it's none of them, I have to conclude that it's due to dishonesty, and I know I can't do anything about it.
And I would like to start with what you said : "The real reason I'm posting here, though, is because I am contractually obligated to appear and defend free-market economics whenever a forum includes three or more instances of "capitalism". "
No need to even speak about communism, just about capitalism, and it's already out of what is allowed. That's what our "democracies" are about. We can discuss about whatever we want inside the capitalism system, but nothing outside.
Questioning capitalism is not permitted. Which is quite of a problem to really determine if it's a good system.
Even if it's not what you meant, that's the reality in western capitalist "democracies".
Now about the possibility of democracy (real democracy) in a communist system.
The communism, is by definition, a system in which the government owns and thus control the means of production (as opposed to the capitalism, in which the means of production are private).
The democracy, is by definition, a system in which the whole population choose and control (or is directly) the government.
The combination of both, which I call auto-government, thus ensure that the whole population is controlling the whole society, allowing to decide of it's future. It's the only way to have this control, and thus a real democratic system, in the sense that the population is deciding of it's future.
And it's possible. The Zapatist movement is an enduring example of it. What is complicated to achieve is a fully democratic transition from the capitalist "democracy" to a non capitalist real democracy.
So no, you don't "have to take into account that these decisions are typically made by a small group of people who don't suffer their costs". It's possible otherwise.
Now I would like to discuss this wonderful phrase : "Sure, you can enforce certain "progressive" economic policies in socialism, but then you are penalizing all of the groups who don't benefit from the policy."
Ahem.
Well, in a way, the capitalism, or at least the neo-liberal capitalism, is socialism for the rich, and free market for the poor.
You know, all the helps given for no counterpart to companies and banks during economical crises and so on...
No need to say more about it. What you said is just or total ignorance, or simply a lie. And no, capitalism is in no way "discouraging the persistence of inequality".
About starvation ( @thomassowell123 ). It's not an exclusivity of communism. Though there has been starvation in the USSR, for instance under Stalin, the Great Famine, in Ireland from 1845 to 1849, is a great example of starvation directly caused by the capitalism ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) ).
In general, starvation is essentially due to exterior factors. The first of them being war. When a country which decided to switch to communism suffers a war (or also heavy economical sanction) from other (capitalist) countries refusing it to leave capitalism, it obviously makes things much harder and can lead to starvation. And the responsible is not communism. It's war. Coming from capitalists states. And I'm not inventing anything. Occidental countries led a war against Russia in 1917, not mainly because it decided to conclude a peace treaty with Germany, but because it decided to switch to communism.
Of course all this is make worse in a very poor country like Russia was at the time.
Also about environmental problems, which are nowadays an emergency.
In capitalism, since the property of the means of production is private (as well as many other things), the class which owns those means, call it whatever you want, but since it's its name, I will say the bourgeoisie, is de facto have an incredibly wide control other the society. And tends to prevent all what goes against its interests. Namely: increasing its power and fortune (at least it's what they think is in their interest).
De-growth, or at least, the stop of growth, which, no matter what, is needed to solve those problems (energy doesn't appear out of nowhere, no need to ask scientists to do that), goes against those interests. Which implies there is no hope to make the bourgeoisie accept it. Which means it's not possible to solve the environmental problems we have inside the capitalism.
I wrote all this hoping that your mistake comes from ignorance. If it's due to stupidity, I don't know what I can do about it. And if it's none of them, I have to conclude that it's due to dishonesty, and I know I can't do anything about it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.