Originally posted by Bobson 94Yes, he's our LOVABLE class CLOWN. I just don't KNOW if he REALIZES it. 😵
I am in the minority in appreciating these posts, your comedy stimulates the immature nerve endings on my funny bone. I hope for your sake you are simply a creative writer with a bit of time on his hands.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexHe might actually have some decent debate topics, but it's hard for people to take him seriously when he doesn't even take himself seriously.
Why is everybody so keen to jump to the defence of a lost arguement, sure there are a few (and I really do mean FEW) strong female players but the vast majority of them are not that great and all the whinging and moaning about chauvanism or that it is a waste of time to play chess is not going to change that.
Originally posted by jeroen1975A great article concerning an excellent scientific study that punctures a rather stubborn myth (which is esp. popular among male chess players).
First of all, your post seems to contradict your earlier statement: "FACT, the MAIN trait needed to become an elite player is a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY". This has nothing to do with being smart. If your debates would have any logic and consistancy you would have explained that fewer women have photographic memory.
But, just to please you, here is the real ...[text shortened]... question: why do girls play with dolls?
Answer: because they get a doll for their birthday.
question: why do girls play with dolls?
Answer: because they get a doll for their birthday.
If a boy and a girl were each to get dolls for their birthday, they would play with them totally differently. There are very distinct differences between the male and female brains and body chemistry. But liberals would like us to believe that the only difference is sexual organs and that males are generally physically stronger.
If there is no difference between male and female, then get rid of female only events and make females play in the regular events just like eveyone else.
Originally posted by EladarI have one son and one daughter, so I am speaking out of practice not theory. My son plays with the same toys as my daughter does and the other way around. My son has just recently stopped liking the color pink. Not because he doesn't like it, but because he has just gone to school and the other boys in his class don't like pink. That is the way it goes.question: why do girls play with dolls?
Answer: because they get a doll for their birthday.
If a boy and a girl were each to get dolls for their birthday, they would play with them totally differently. There are very distinct differences between the male and female brains and body chemistry. But liberals would like us to believe that the ...[text shortened]... et rid of female only events and make females play in the regular events just like eveyone else.
I am not disagreeing with the fact that there are differences, just like there are differences between persons of the same sex. I only wanted to point out that a lot of these differences are brought on by culture, not nature.
Not a lot of girls join chess clubs, for numerous reasons. One of them could be that men like to taunt girls with statements like "girls can't play chess".
How old was your son when he went to school? Changes occur in the brain as children develop. The liking or disliking of certain colors probably isn't a brain development issue, but abilities to visualize and how we handle information in our head is.
If you were to look at young children you may not think there was much of a differece in physical abilities either. But by the time they hit 16 or so, the physical changes are quite dramatic, and the changes are not just what you can see on the outside.
I remember reading a post from a guy who is a chess coach at a school and has kids of all ages. He said that in elementary school he had alot of girls who played chess, but by the time they reached high school they don't show up anymore. Nerds don't stop being nerds. So you can't blame it all on social training, if it was really that strong, there wouldn't be any nerds at all. There must be something more going on and if you can see it in one area, why is it so difficult to accept it in another?
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschexhttp://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/12/why_are_there_so_few_female_chess_grandmasters.php
Why is everybody so keen to jump to the defence of a lost arguement, sure there are a few (and I really do mean FEW) strong female players but the vast majority of them are not that great and all the whinging and moaning about chauvanism or that it is a waste of time to play chess is not going to change that.
Have you read this one (posted in this thread before your post)? If your answer is yes - what counter arguments you have? If none - then please be so kind and stop being retard + shut up!
Please please PLEASE, stay on topic.
I have been surfing the web and found TONS of articles which support my facts. Here is one such link.
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/male-brain-vs-female-brain-i-why-do-men-try-figure-out-th-0
After all, if you cant believe psychology today, what CAN you believe?
Conclusion: Women can excel in chess. Women can rise to elite levels. There are women who can beat 99% men in chess. There are women who can beat the BEST male chess player, from time to time. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, the STRONGEST female chess player can NEVER EVER EVER win a 7 game match against the STRONGEST male chess player. EVER. The female may win 2 games and draw 1 or win one and draw 3, etc. But the LAWS of averages demand that the male win the tournament. The laws of EVOLUTION also demand it. This is why you cannot find a female who as EVER ranked #1 in the world, even for 1 day.
Is it then true that until the end of time a woman will never be ranked #1 just because there has yet to be one? YES. Hmmmmm, since....what.....the 1400's, no woman has ever been regarded as the BEST. I got 600 years on MY SIDE, supporting me. How can anyone argue with THAT?
Originally posted by cheater1How does that article support your claims?
Please please PLEASE, stay on topic.
I have been surfing the web and found TONS of articles which support my facts. Here is one such link.
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/male-brain-vs-female-brain-i-why-do-men-try-figure-out-th-0
After all, if you cant believe psychology today, what CAN you believe?
Co ...[text shortened]... garded as the BEST. I got 600 years on MY SIDE, supporting me. How can anyone argue with THAT?
Originally posted by cheater1Be careful when you use words such as never or ever. The laws of evolution. 1. The world is changing and the entities that live on it also change. 2. Every group of living entities on earth descended from a common ancester. 3. Species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species. 4. Changes take place through a gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals. 5. Individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Law number one could be used too claim that a woman or women could some day become the strongest chess player(s) ever? P.S. These laws were taken from "Darwin's Five Laws of Evolution". I do not believe in evolution nor do I believe that a woman will ever be the World Chess Champion.
Please please PLEASE, stay on topic.
I have been surfing the web and found TONS of articles which support my facts. Here is one such link.
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/male-brain-vs-female-brain-i-why-do-men-try-figure-out-th-0
After all, if you cant believe psychology today, what CAN you believe?
Co ...[text shortened]... garded as the BEST. I got 600 years on MY SIDE, supporting me. How can anyone argue with THAT?
Originally posted by KorchI'm sure he seized on this part:
How does that article support your claims?
Men’s greater systemizing and mechanistic skills are the primary reasons why they are better than women at mathematics, physics, and engineering, because all of these fields deal with various rational “systems” governed by rules....and mentally added "chess" to the list.
However, none of this refutes the point of participation. Even if their claim about 'female' brains was true, they have admitted that there are exceptions to the rule, and that brains are adaptable. Thus, with more women playing chess, not only would there be a greater possibility of a woman with a strong analytical mind becoming the best player, but also women in general would adapt their thinking [again, assuming for the sake of argument that their claim is true].
Well, I MUST go a bit off topic here...just for a moment.
First off, evolution is NOT a theory, but a FACT. Now, I'm not saying that darwin was right and that our ancestors were apes. No no no. There may be a god and creationism may be the reason we are here, but evolution is a proven fact, what CANNOT be proven is that it is responsible for us being here.
Let me explain. Assuming that Adam and Eve were the first two beings on this earth and everyone else decended from them, assuming Adam and Eve looked like every other Israelite, then EVERYONE on this earth would look like every other Israelite. AHHHH, but we dont. Afro, caucasian, hispanic, latino, chinese, etc etc etc all look different DUE TO evolution. Their appearance is DIRECTLY influenced by the region they grew up in. Ever see a black man whose lineage can be traced back to NORWAY? Nope. never.
Back to chess. The reason Man's brain is 10 percent larger than a female's is due to the fact that over the tens of thousands of years, we used it MORE. That's why 99.999999% time a man can bench press more than a woman, we use our muscles more. Our brain was used for tens of thousands of years to solve problems. Analyze and invent. We have a 10,000 year head start. SO, as the saying goes, "never say never". I will once again be the BETTER MAN and retract my statement and ammend it to say this:
Within the next 1000 years (Im giving you the benefit of the doubt) A female will NEVER hold the title of World Chess Champion.