Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    15 Mar '09 02:33
    Fellas, fellas, fellas. Calm down. Once again, I am here to REFUTE and DISCREDIT cheater_1 in one swipe

    -

    First off, you DO need to cite your position if you are to be taken seriously. Therefore this argument you presented is hardly an argument, which I will dissect here.

    Let's start with 1 technicality:

    You said that EVOLUTION is a FACT. That is wrong - it is a credible theory. The reason it is not a fact is because there are other theories that have not been discredited, and that, if correct, means that evolution is wrong. Now this isn't the main issue of your position, so I won't push further, especially since evolution is widely credible.

    Males USED to have a clear instinct to kill, more so than women, but in modern society, where chess is played, MEN have no more an innate killing instinct than women. You will HESITATE to kill another man just as much as a woman will. Likewise, women are just as quick to slaughter cows and pigs as men are.

    Even if we DO have an innate desire to kill, that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with chess! NOTHING! You cannot cite that anywhere, my cheating friend!

    You are right in one aspect however - that females' brains do NOT work like men's. That much is obvious. That explains why we dress different and act differently. However, men are NOT naturally more analytical - that remains a much debated topic. Many psychologists consider women to think more reasonably then men.

    Neither are women more EMOTIONAL. In fact (and I WILL cite this), of the differences between men and women about 80% are 'negligible' (http://www.psychologymatters.org/thinkagain.html) and the remaining 20% are mainly physiological.

    The emotional side of your brain DOES get you somewhere in chess, I might add. Nervousness in a chess tournament is a prime example. You can be as analytical a man as you want, but if you have no control over your nervousness and play a composed woman of slightly less rating (-200 pts say) you will probably lose.

    The reason there are not as many women at the top is explained by the fact that there are SIGNIFICANTLY less who PLAY. It is not because men are more analytical or have evolved to have genetic traits that make them better than men. Pluck a random, average woman and a random, average male, and I can it is a toss-up who wins.

    Common sense dictates


    I hereby conclude my argument.
  2. Standard member RECUVIC
    international loser
    15 Mar '09 03:05
    All acceptable as true and logical,to me!The reason men do, always have and always will perform better in chess,is actually the simplest of reasons,more males study it,and more males study it more deeply than most women chess players,simple as that! As to the reasons why,you could discuss those issues forever more with a great many of thoroughly debatable reasons,many valid and invalid reasons,the reasons however are not in the real world of people particularily important,only the reality ,that is!-----------Why does the sky appear to be blue in a cloudless daytime sky? we know the reasons however a thousand years ago we did not know ,but did not knowing actually make a real difference to the people alive at the time? No of course ,it did not as is the case with many questions on many subjects including some chess related questions,some are simply pointless questions and always will be.-----
  3. 15 Mar '09 03:56
    First off, RAMNED, evolution is INDEED a fact. The very FACT that there are white people, black people, red people, people from the far east that are shorter than people from Africa, people from the northern, colder climates that are hairier than people from the warmer, equatorial climates, PROVES that people evolve based on region. NEED I GO ON........?

    Evolution does not just mean ape to man. Please insult my intelligence NO MORE!!!

    Secondly, the disproportionate amount of men vs women who play the game has ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH IT. We are NOT talking about per capita. We are NOT comparing the total amount of one gender vs the total amount of another gender. We ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE THING....Why men are better than women. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK!!!!! We are NOT talking about why there are more men than women at the top of this field. We are talking about why a WOMAN cannot rise to the top of a game that GENETICALLY discriminates against certain people (women).

    By your flawed logic, just because there are more men who play the game, it only stands to reason that a man will be number one. Allow me to prove you wrong: There happen to be about 13% black people in the United States, please tell me then why approximately 80% to 90% pro athletes are black? Why is that in all the olympic sprinting events in recent history, NOT ONE WHITE person has won? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, perhaps it is genetics. YES YES YES, thats it!!!! Voila!! It all has to do with genetics and NOTHING to do with total amount of people participating.

    I REST MY CASE.
  4. 15 Mar '09 09:01
    Originally posted by cheater1
    [b]First off, RAMNED, evolution is INDEED a fact.
    Evolution is not a fact but the most sound and logical, but still not completely proven, theory. Believing that something is a fact, does not make it a fact.
  5. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    15 Mar '09 09:03
    Originally posted by Ramned
    Fellas, fellas, fellas. Calm down. Once again, I am here to REFUTE and DISCREDIT cheater_1 in one swipe

    -

    First off, you DO need to cite your position if you are to be taken seriously. Therefore this argument you presented is hardly an argument, which I will dissect here.

    Let's start with 1 technicality:

    You said that EVOLUTION is a FACT. That ...[text shortened]... t is a toss-up who wins.

    Common sense dictates


    I hereby conclude my argument.
    I would rec it if I only had a rec button. Keep up the good work.
  6. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    15 Mar '09 09:07
    Originally posted by cheater1
    First off, RAMNED, evolution is INDEED a fact. The very FACT that there are white people, black people, red people, people from the far east that are shorter than people from Africa, people from the northern, colder climates that are hairier than people from the warmer, equatorial climates, PROVES that people evolve based on region. NEED I GO ON........?
    ...[text shortened]... do with genetics and NOTHING to do with total amount of people participating.

    I REST MY CASE.
    Dude, let's say that you are really speaking the truth. Excuse us for our stupidness but WHO IN THE WORLD will believe and take for granted the "truth" of user called "cheater" ? That would be a BIG paradox.

    I don't believe to cheaters usually. They don't care about their dignity and I don't care about what they have to say. Your credibility is ZERO.
  7. 15 Mar '09 10:10
    Originally posted by cheater1
    . Allow me to prove you wrong: There happen to be about 13% black people in the United States, please tell me then why approximately 80% to 90% pro athletes are black? Why is that in all the olympic sprinting events in recent history, NOT ONE WHITE person has won? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, perhaps it is genetics. YES YES YES, thats it!!!! Voila!! It all has to do with genetics and NOTHING to do with total amount of people participating.

    I REST MY CASE.
    Well, there is also a factor called CULTURE. I don't think japanese are naturally very adept at sumo wrestling because of their genes. I think that that sport belongs in their CULTURE and not a lot of other people will participate it.

    The same goes for other sports. Kenians are good long distance runners because they were used as running messengers in colonial times, it was part of their work.

    So you explain to me how brit's have it in their genes to be the best darts players in the world, why the former soviet countries still dominate chess and why we dutch rule as ice skaters? Because those sports are part of a country's culture, not because dutch people are genetically better built as skaters, or british have a natural good aim.
  8. 15 Mar '09 10:49
    The Theory of Evolution.
    The keyword being 'theory' it's not a fact. (yet).

    On a personal level, I think this planet was once used a penal colony
    and all the Madman and Thieves were dropped on here by our real
    ancestors (most likey our real home is Sireus), to rid themselves of
    their annoying scum.

    This would explain many things about human behaviour.

    Madmen = Adam & Thieves = Eve.

    Remove the humans from this planet and it would be a paradise.
    We do not belong here. We are freaks.

    Woman and Men in Chess
    A previous poster nailed it.
    More men play than women so statiscally...etc.
    Also women have far better things to do than play chess, which after
    all is just a game.

    Two things.
    Every World Champion was born of women - (someone explain to Cheat1 how this is done).

    In the womb our sex is one of the last things to be determined.
    (that is why men have nipples). So it's most likely a behaviour thing,
    again this has been covered in a previous post.

    Should this mularky not be discussed on the Religeous Forum?
    Cheat get on there, you will find a whole nest of nutters who are far
    easier to wind up. This lot just aint biting anymore.

    (give us all a shout when you make your appearance there so we can
    pop in and have a laugh. Your style and gifted prose, couple with your
    complete ignorance will have them frothing at the mouth. - good luck)
  9. 15 Mar '09 12:14
    Sprinting. Check out Jeremy Wariner. Then realize that you do not have the FACTS.
  10. 15 Mar '09 12:56
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Should this mularky not be discussed on the Religeous Forum?
    Cheat get on there, you will find a whole nest of nutters who are far
    easier to wind up.
    I wholeheartedly support this idea.
  11. Standard member Ramned
    The Rams
    15 Mar '09 15:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by cheater1
    First off, RAMNED, evolution is INDEED a fact. The very FACT that there are white people, black people, red people, people from the far east that are shorter than people from Africa, people from the northern, colder climates that are hairier than people from the warmer, equatorial climates, PROVES that people evolve based on region. NEED I GO ON........?
    ...[text shortened]... do with genetics and NOTHING to do with total amount of people participating.

    I REST MY CASE.
    I will now provide my Knockout BLOW.

    -Evolution is NOT a fact, because there are other explanations as to why people from Africa are taller, and until those thousands of explanations as they come are proven wrong, evolution stands as the most credible THEORY, and nothing more. Argue that no further, it will discredit you more.


    As someone mentioned earlier, CULTURES have a big part in why Africans win Olympic Sprints, Europeans when the bike races, and Asians win the lifting. If white Americans concentrated mountain biking into the top of our culture then we would be much better, or provide better participants.


    Now, you really only addressed 1 piece of my argument, which is that there are more men than women - you left the rest untouched.

    Therefore:

    Winner = Ramned, (2-0)

    (More men play than women does make it harder for a woman to get #1 in the world, can't argue with COMMON SENSE)

    EDIT - you actually did present a good argument the first time but this one was easier to tackle due to you not citing anything or considering evolution a Fact...pffftttt
  12. Standard member Rank Materialist
    Carpe! Carpe! Carpe!
    15 Mar '09 15:46
    Here are a couple thought-provoking articles to ponder. The second one might even bring the discussion back around to chess.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08baron-cohen.html

    http://www.newstatesman.com/200505230007
  13. 15 Mar '09 15:48
    Yes, yes, you all have succeeded--through your IGNORANCE--in getting me MAD!!! Bad things used to happen when I got mad. I got BANNED in forums, I got fined, I got thrown in jail. You see, I have NO patience for ignorance. I could never be a teacher because I would smack the students right across the face if they didnt understand the way I was explaining things. I pride myself in my EASY TO UNDERSTAND demeanor. I am insulted here.

    One thing I DESPISE is holding people's hands, walking them point by point through something so they GET IT. But the posters in this topic, JUST....DONT....GET...IT. You all dispute my points but FAIL to back them up with FACTS. I DEMAND YOU DO!!!! FACTS!!!! LINKS!!!!


    This first link deals with evolution. REMEMBER we are talking about MICROEVOLUTION, (descent with modification) evolution on a small scale such as brown beetles that migrated to a different location turning green due to regional influences. You dolts seem to think I'm talking about ape to man, which is a THEORY. Remember, NO LINKS from wikipedia. I do not recognize wiki-ANYTHING as credible. It has been proven to be innacurate 30%-40% of the time. Notice the word "Berkeley" in the address....'Nuff Said.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01



    As an Atheist myself, I just LOVED this link. It is PURE logic and common sense. It talks about that if you leave microevolution (a biological FACT) go on long enough, macroevolution will take place.I'll admit, it's still a theory, but at least the creationists ADMIT that microevolution takes place. The simple fact that blacks are native to Africa and whites are native to Sweden PROVES it.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm





    Finally, another topic on macro and microevolution. Do you all GET IT now? Please, for my sake, say yes. My patience with you all is at its END.

    http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html


    Conclusion. One......more.....time. Ape to man, DEBATEABLE. Not interested. Thousands of years of Man's brain evolving in a different way than a women's, so that they become more adept at SYSTEMATIC ANALYZATION, thereby making them GENETICALLY BETTER CHESS players, FACT. No disrespect, I'm not knocking women. Equal time here, women are genetically superior to men at understanding and empathizing with others.

    Now, I must insist, if anyone cares to go TOE TO TOE with me (I welcome it), you must provide CREDIBLE evidence as I have. Just calling me names doesnt cut it.

    The case is now CLOSED unless anyone else cares to submit evidence that will keep it open. I shall NOT respond to anyone unless they post something LEGITIMATE.
  14. 15 Mar '09 16:31
    Originally posted by tamuzi
    Sprinting. Check out Jeremy Wariner. Then realize that you do not have the FACTS.
    He runs 400 meters. The 100 meter sprinters are the kings of the track. They are the celebrated heros. As far as the 400 meters goes. Michael Johnson.
  15. 15 Mar '09 16:43
    Originally posted by ivan2908
    Dude, let's say that you are really speaking the truth. Excuse us for our stupidness but WHO IN THE WORLD will believe and take for granted the "truth" of user called "cheater" ? That would be a BIG paradox.

    I don't believe to cheaters usually. They don't care about their dignity and I don't care about what they have to say. Your credibility is ZERO.
    Good point Ivan.

    It's very interesting to see cheater1 speaking so strongly about subjects based on secondary research. It is a joke, makes him sound like an opinionated college student who spends all day protesting. I have never even seen PhDs (you know the people who wrote the papers you are referencing) who devote their entire life to the research of such topics speak with such confidence since deep down they know it can be disproven at any given point by new research.

    A real expert conducts his or her own primary research, writes the paper, and then presents his or her ideas in front of a worldwide panel of experts in the same field in order to be critiqued and debated. Googling and citing other people's work, claiming as fact, is a complete waste of time with the quality of research equal to an undergrad paper.

    It is funny that the nobel prize winners are not the ones pounding their chests and telling people whats whats. But it those who have never succeeded in that craft that offer the strongest opinions, or in cheater1's case, "FACTS".