Men are SMARTER than women at chess.

Originally posted by cheater1
HPHOVERCRAFT, you deserve responding to because I ACTUALLY believe that you believe what you said. Allow me to debunk you.

1) How can a NEWLY emerging player be championship material? That 's what they said about Waitkin, but his poor memory prevented him. Gender aside, the person who is just learning how to move the pieces does NOT have his or her futu ake a course of action, as I have, that elevates you from a mere layman, to a scholar.

I'm going to play chea....errr devil's advocate and say let's pretend cheater1 is right (personally I think he is full of crap)...but then I have to turn to cheater1 and ask a simple question:

Cheater1, assuming you are right about this whole "male smarter at chess than female" thing: So WHAT?

You claimed (initially) that you came to the forums "to enlighten us that we may be become better chess players" (not quoted from him, just quickly paraphrased).
Seems like a pretty simple goal right?
Thus far you have posted useless topics...
"Oh you have to have photographic memory"
"Oh you have to be male"
"Oh you have to s...."
...wait....that's next week
anyways my point is this: what have your topics thus far done to actually work from your point of purpose?

again....to everyone else...I still believe cheater1 is full of crap....just playing devils advocate

EDIT: this isn't a debate on your point...but rather a simple question to your intent

CGUY, I'll respond. There are a multitude of reasons why I post here.

I LOVE all things chess. It is my favorite game. I can talk chess all day long.

I love to debate. I shouldda been a trial lawyer or a talk show host. I was a major player, a long time ago, on a debate team.

Chess is so WIDELY misunderstood that I feel it my obligation to straighten things out. Just look at how confused so many people on this site are.

In the past, I found out that people DONT CARE about boring old topics like, "what's your favorite opening?" etc. Oh, I could lecture you all on how to play better chess, but based on my history at other sites, people just wont care. Maybe I'll forgo my on-deck topic for a chess lecture just to see how it's received.

As for the "so what?" factor, well, who doesn't like a good debate? Chess can be tied into MANY different events in life. I like making those connections, connections that may be debateable, and then stating my case, proving my point, and WINNING the debate. Just as I took up cheating at chess to DOMINATE others, I like to dominate a debate. It is a challenge to make you all see my way...the RIGHT way. I feel I've swayed many people over and will continue to do so. It's a challenge.

Let's end this topic now so we can move on.

Quote:

"Oh, I could lecture you all on how to play better chess,"

unquote.

Now you are talking, never mind all this bollocks about odd socks,
women's brains and Rooks floating around in buckets of water.

This is a chess forum. You have the floor.
Please don't disappoint us with a cut and paste job from another site.

Give it to us right between the eyes in your own way.

Imagine we are all 1400 players and we want to improve - what do we do?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Imagine we are all 1400 players and we want to improve - what do we do?

Spend less time in the RHP forums and more reading Chandler Cornered and Korch's blog.

Originally posted by cheater1
2) You said that, "Stipulating for a moment that these skill levels are roughly equal and using these figures above...." DONT YOU GET IT???? The skills ARE NOT roughly equal. That is the point of my post. THEY are not equal. Male's brains have microevolved to superior levels of SYSTEMATIC ANALYZATION, allowing us to DOMINATE tasks which involve S.A, chess being one of them.

I've heard you make this same claim many times, always backed only by the typical nattering you do about statistics. Which, as I've helpfully pointed out, is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. Without the statistical massage, what evidence can you show that men are superior to women at chess?

Because, you see, insisting that your primary assumption must be true because it is true is at best a meaningless tautology and at worst the continued trollings of someone who really doesn't feel he gets enough attention in his day-to-day life.

You're welcome to throw more ad-hominem attacks my way if it makes you feel better about yourself.