Originally posted by EladarHi.
You see this kind of stuff in schools all the time. Girls are generally better at English than boys, but boys are generally better at math.
Thats just plain wrong. English and math base on the same skills, pattern recognition and application. This is a stereotype created and continued by schools for the detriment to the system.
Originally posted by cheater1I agree with you that men are better at woman in chess (in general) because of thier brain.
I stand behind the scientific findings (not theory) that the male brain has microevolved (descent with modification) to better understand and comprehend certain things, and the things that it comprehends better (spacial relationships, analyzations, systems, mathematics, etc.) just happens to be CORE elements of chess.
Men have bigger brain, and can concentrate better on one thing. This i tihnk is usefull for chess.
Woman can communicate better/more between both sides of the brain, therefor are better at doing two things at one time. As you all know they usualy always talk, and do something else beside it;p
Originally posted by cheater1Actually, the issue of memory being the primary criterion for being a good chess player is an interesting one (more interesting than this gender debate 😉)
I would like to argue with MYSELF for a second. Mr. cheater_1, you earlier said the a PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY was the PRIME criteria for becoming a chess elite. It IS scientific fact that women's memories are better than men's. Why oh why then is there not a #1 ranked women?
A couple of years ago, I was playing my boss (not during work time 🙂) and was slaughtering him, and he looks up and says "The only skill that's really critical to being a great chess player is memory. No one can calculate all the variations in his head. The great players have seen so many positions that they can, during a game, recall the closest position they've seen to this one and remember the best move in that similar position and apply it to the present game." At the time, I thought he was just trying to trivialize or explain away his lack of skill. the more I think about it, the more it makes sense, though. I don't think memory is the sole criterion for being a great chess player, but it's important.
The discussion is far to narrow.
If, as I do, one subscribes to the belief that one's sex is better determined by one's brain functions and not by the body inhabited you reach the point where there are men trapped in womens bodies and women trapped in mens bodies.
This leads to the problem that as I have never been inside the brains of Kasparov, Polgar and the like I am not in a position to determine their inner (as opposed to their external) gender and cannot therefor blindly accept any of the statisitics referred to. Please return once you can prove the inner gender of everyone who contributed to the statisitcs.
Originally posted by tamuziI don't think it's a wrongful stereotype at all. I have no data regarding the median boy vs. the median girl at math, but at the top level, virtually all the top mathematicians and physicists in the World's history have been men. Perhaps you'll say that's based on societal discrimination. But, then how would you explain why so many of the World's great authors and other artists have been women?
Hi.
Thats just plain wrong. English and math base on the same skills, pattern recognition and application. This is a stereotype created and continued by schools for the detriment to the system.
I'm sure it's true that historically, women were held down by discrimination, but they've gone much further since discrimination has been lifted in the fields of literature and the arts than they have in math and the physical sciences.
Originally posted by sh76Because women were allowed to write books, but they weren't allowed to go to the university and learn high-level math.
I don't think it's a wrongful stereotype at all. I have no data regarding the median boy vs. the median girl at math, but at the top level, virtually all the top mathematicians and physicists in the World's history have been men. Perhaps you'll say that's based on societal discrimination. But, then how would you explain why so many of the World's great authors ...[text shortened]... the fields of literature and the arts than they have in math and the physical sciences.
When giving a patronising lecture, it is best not to make elementary math errors. I refer you to a previous comment, your first probability is 1 in 11, not 1 in 10. You've also missed the point completely. You surmised correctly that skill determines the winner of a match, not simple probability though I thought that would have been obvious. Nobody is disputing that. The fact that more men play chess makes it more likely that there will be a male WCC because it makes it more likely that a man with the necessary skill will play the game, work at the game and become WCC. Fewer women playing chess? Less likely for a woman to become WCC since the set of women sampled from the population is smaller and less likely to include the necessary skills and devotion to the game. Now you are dismissed 😛
Originally posted by cheater1I'm sorry, but you flunked your exams. You cannot call yourself a professor. Your initial threads here promoted ideas regarding eidetic memory that were refuted in the nineteenth century at the very beginning of the science of psychology. This was pointed out with citations, yet you persisted in your errors and ignored the corrections.
Pupils, pupils, please have a seat...shhhhh.... Professor cheater_1 is about to go over today's lesson.
You are a fraud.
Originally posted by WulebgrRec`ed
I'm sorry, but you flunked your exams. You cannot call yourself a professor. Your initial threads here promoted ideas regarding eidetic memory that were refuted in the nineteenth century at the very beginning of the science of psychology. This was pointed out with citations, yet you persisted in your errors and ignored the corrections.
You are a fraud.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47Oh, thank god. If this topic actually got past the first page without someone noticing, I was going to lose all faith in humanity.
If you had 10 red socks and 1 white sock, the probability of drawing a white one would be 1 in 11🙄
...well, whatever little bit cheater1's other topics had left me with, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Originally posted by hphovercraftWhat's the big deal? So he gave one example without thinking it through!? Why is everyone making such a big deal about this one little mistake that's not much more than a typographical error? Does anyone seriously think that cheater1 didn't fundamentally know that 1+10=11?
Oh, thank god. If this topic actually got past the first page without someone noticing, I was going to lose all faith in humanity.
...well, whatever little bit cheater1's other topics had left me with, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Whatever you think of cheater1, if you want to go after him, go after him on substance. Why triumphantly tear him to shreds based on a typo?
I think too many people are getting offended by cheater1's "arrogant" act. Folks, he does that for comedic effect. He even said so himself at one point.
I find cheater1's posts to be entertaining and I hope he continues to post. I don't care whether he's right or wrong. The issues he discusses are all trivial or meaningless anyway. Who cares whether he's right or wrong? If you'd all look at his posts as half-comedic, half-serious, you wouldn't worry so much about how offensive or wrong you may think he is.
Entertainment has consequences. Ask anyone whose grandfather has one of those lynching mementos from the early twentieth century.
Cheater_1 is funny, but tragically so. He or she demonstrates almost complete ignorance of almost every critical aspect of cheating and chess: knowledge of software and hardware capabilities, the psychology of memory and chess skill, elementary statistics, ...
If there's ONE thing I HATE, it's the internet grammar or addition police. I DESPISE you. Worse than trolls and flamers in my book.
In my PASSIONATE typing, I occasionally type something like, "There are far to many trolls on this site." OF COURSE I know its supposed to be too, or theres supposed to be a hyphen in theres. Of course I know 1+10 is 11. If THE CRUX of your argument is to pick apart typos on my part and AVOID debating with me because of my superior skills, well then, I guess I have proven my point. And you all know what that point is, dont you?