|
The Gibraltar Chess Festival (sponsored 2011-2018 by Tradewise Insurance Company Ltd) started in 2003 and became one of the premier open events in the world. The 14th edition in 2016 attracted a huge field of competitors from around the globe including over 70 grandmasters and over 500 players in all sections. Tournament director: ... [more]
|
|
Player: Jens Henrichsen
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-15-16 | | Everett: and <s4life> I need evidence that girls playing chess are considered weird. Your question does not address the need for at least some sort of evidence. Thanks in advance for providing some. |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | Everett: < You need to prove that in a controlled experiment. All I see is unwarranted speculation with ugly underpinnings tbh.> Actually the burden of proof is on those who feel traditional strengths and weaknesses of the sexes come from nothing but culture (and not the other way around, that culture, at base, is predicated on the very real differences between sexes) As far as what you consider <ugly>, that is most certainly culturally constructed. |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | nok: <When you give one population a drug that ramps up aggression and competitive tendencies (...) No need for evil bogeymen holding women down.> It's the other way round. Cultural habits are the elephant in the room. When you see that, there's no need to blather generalities about how chemistry affects us all. Evidence of cultural determination is how some countries have developed much stronger female players than others; China and Georgia come to mind. I guess you think Chinese girls are spoon-fed testosterone. |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | nok: <Btw, in the athletic sport world, the timing of the menstrual cycle vis a vis competitive event is a very big deal and strictly planned for at the highest levels.> Comparing an abstract pattern recognition problem to athletism is pretty misguided. It's more akin to doing math, sight-reading or indeed playing an instrument. Oestrogen be damned, I know women that are damn good at these. |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | Everett: <nok> Why are you arguing how women compete against each other, when I'm arguing women simply cannot compete head to head with men in so many things due to biology? No matter the training of women in physical sports, there is no evidence that they are even close in performance. And yes, both male and female athletes are continuing to take various steroids, testosterone pre-cursors to get an edge. All these drug enhancements derive from hormones that are found in abundance in men, much less in women. No one has been hit taking extra estrogen or progesterone. There are real reasons for this. It's not the other way around. Still waiting for some sort of evidence from your side of things. Biology, endrocrinology and history support my view. <Comparing an abstract pattern recognition problem to athletism is pretty misguided> Menstrual cycles are as concrete as it gets. Coaches who must win take all vital factors into account. Hard data and abstract models are both used interchangeably in the sports world. You seem out of touch with this. |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | nok: <Why are you arguing how women compete against each other (...) Still waiting for some sort of evidence> Obviously, you didn't understand my point. Cultural factors are evidenced by regional variability of female player strength. <Biology, endrocrinology and history support my view.> Your view is based on a faulty conflation of chess with athletism. Blacks may be better sprinters, it serves them little for recognizing patterns OTB. I cited reasonably comparable fields; and no, I don't know of any female (or male) mathematician or musician that takes steroids to get better. Now if you wanna make a point, take some steroids yourself and come back report your rating curve. |
|
| Feb-15-16 | | s4life: <everett> Please direct me to any claim I've made that needs proof. All I have said from the very start is that this phenotype variance "stuff" is a lot more complex than you and others are making it out to be. There is genetic, environmental and even measurement error components that need to be carefully dissected and measured individually. Otherwise you end up with simplistic assumptions, wrong conclusions and pseudoscientific theories and speculation. I am sorry but what you are preaching is pure and simple dangerous pseudoscience. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | Everett: <nok> I understand and have understood perfectly. You may stick with your computer models and nipping at the edges of my posts, though it seems the limbic system is getting the best of you. I already told you that chess is not my main focus, though <alexmagnus> has given data showing that hormonal changes may make a big difference in chess development. In any case, check this out and do your own thinking. <http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guide...> This of course is just scratching the surface. <s4life> Still no evidence from you. Phenotype? Link it, show us something. BTW I'm a full believer in epigenetic principles. I work with the brain and nervous system all the time in my work. So I'm down with plasticity, with change, with a lot of this new science. None of the new stuff, however, washes away some hard-wired biological mechanisms. If you think it does, then stop talking about it and show me something. Thanks everyone for joining in! A pleasure as always. See everyone around. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | Mulled Wine: <None of the new stuff, however, washes away some hard-wired biological mechanisms> yes it's called she is 8 years old and can whoop yours and any male banker, surgeon, monetary anaylst, architect out there whos living is to observe, equate and find solutions to problems but cannot seem to do it at chess very well because they do not have her gift. DUH. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | nok: <chess is not my main focus, though <alexmagnus> has given data showing that hormonal changes may make a big difference in chess development> That's your interpretation, and it's quite problematic. Your link shows that male and female brains differ from birth, and even fetal stage. Yet alexmagnus tells us they handle chess equally well until teen age. Surprise, surprise. I'll save the last word for your own link: <boys tend to get a lot more practice "moving through space" -- chasing a ball, for instance -- than girls do. "My hypothesis is that we could possibly erase this difference if we pushed girls out into the exploratory mode," Denckla says. She predicts that as more and more girls engage in sports traditionally reserved for boys, like soccer, the data on spatial ability will show fewer disparities between females and males.> |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | Absentee: <Mulled Wine: <None of the new stuff, however, washes away some hard-wired biological mechanisms> yes it's called she is 8 years old and can whoop yours and any male banker, surgeon, monetary anaylst, architect out there whos living is to observe, equate and find solutions to problems but cannot seem to do it at chess very well because they do not have her gift. DUH.>
Can you please stop being silly? Please? Your posts are getting more annoyingly idiotic every time. The "gift" is called visual-spatial processing and pattern recognition. This is what chessplaying is based on. And those are functions of the brain dependent on areas that develop differently in men and in women. It doesn't mean that women can't play chess, of course. There is an ample margin of variation. It means that, other factors being equal, men will generally do it better. And go figure: they really do. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | s4life: <everett> What claims have I made that need proof? still waiting on that one. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | nok: <other factors being equal, men will generally do it better. And go figure: they really do.> They do because other factors are not equal. <The "gift" is called visual-spatial processing and pattern recognition. This is what chessplaying is based on.> That's too general a statement. Pattern recognition covers *a lot* of what the brain does, including activities where women are usually seen as better, like communication. Chess patterns are highly specific, different yet from 3D-navigational patterns. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | Mulled Wine: <nok> well said.
<absentee> yes <Your posts are getting more annoyingly idiotic every time> ditto :) |
|
Feb-16-16
 | | Sally Simpson: Good Gosh!
"...melanin levels, hormones, puberty, brain capacity, steroids..." You lot sound as bored as I am waiting for the Candidates. It's simple.
God made men the better chess players because he had to give us something we would better than women at else we would sulk and never comes out of our caves. And...
Without a shred of evidence, I have just this minute decided that all cave paintings were done by women. (think about it makes a lot of sense.) The caveman is always credited when some lost in a cave fool discovers these paintings. They were done by cavewomen. The men go out hunting and these cave drawings of mammoths and buffalos are in actual fact shopping lists. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | Everett: <nok> who's <Denkla>? A woman, of course. In short, hormone production affects brain development and behavior. Brain development and behavior create a loop that further influences brain development. Hormone type and amount of hormone produced are greatly determined by sex. That is my argument. Refutation? |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | Everett: <s4life> pathetic games. I explicitly asked you for some links on phenotype influence that trumps hormonal/sex differentiation. Your turn. |
|
| Feb-16-16 | | Everett: <absentee> I think <mulled wine> is coming from a place of emotion, and no sort of logic/rational principles will influence him. <s4life> is similar. <nok> on the other hand, has good arguments yet gives no strong reason to throw away biology. He only gives more examples of the influence of environment. That's great, but it doesn't disprove biology at all. IMHO he is intentionally ignoring this by conflating race with sex. Funny thing is, as you well know, I'm usually with <nok> and "against" you regarding the value of ratings and such. It's all quite interesting. |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | s4life: <Everett: <s4life> pathetic games. I explicitly asked you for some links on phenotype influence that trumps hormonal/sex differentiation.
Your turn.>
Never claimed such thing, I think you were referring to "phenotypic variation," (phenotypic influence does not make sense). it's a well known theory that genetic, environmental and measurement errors contribute to this variation. You can wiki Falconer if you wanna learn something about it. The problem is trying to asses the influence of each contributing component..in general it's quite hard to determine the genetic component of even the simplest of phenotypes, let alone a specific area of brain development.
You are claiming that chess strength is all genetics (gender is genetics).. how in the world can you come up with such conclusion if you don't even know all the factors that are involved in brain development? I am still waiting for you to come up with stuff I said that I need to prove.. I am sorry to say this, but I feel you have set up strawmen argument. |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | nok: <who's <Denkla>? A woman, of course.> So we're into ad hominem now. She has a PhD in neurology, but hey, she's a woman. Anyway, you posted that. <In short, hormone production affects brain development and behavior. Brain development and behavior create a loop that further influences brain development. Hormone type and amount of hormone produced are greatly determined by sex. That is my argument. Refutation?> Nobody's refuting that, because it's generally true. What we're saying is these brains, different from the get-go, handle chess equally well until teen age. This, in spite of fetal and childhood differences, like the testosterone boost at age 4. You cherry-pick the puberty boost because it somehow fits the data. |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | Everett: <nok> No one is playing chess before 4, so there is no before/after like puberty. By 6-7-8, hormone profiles are pretty similar between genders, which is likely the time kids are getting into the game. <there is no refutation> that's right. |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | Everett: <s4life> <but a teenage girl studying chess really is a weirdo> You claim that this feeling is widely held by the majority, and that it is socially constructed. Prove it |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | Everett: <nok> the change at puberty is not just testosterone influence, but the onset of the menstrual cycle, and hormones part and parcel of that process. This also is not happening at 4 (just making sure you're following here). So we have two distinct groups getting heavy hits of select drugs pumped into their system. You are ignoring that hormones affect behavior. Hormones literally <change the environment> of the brain, and thus directly and indirectly shift the direction of development, through different chosen experiences while under their influence. They both change the environment and the experiences of how the organism interacts with the world, and how that interaction will be processed in the brain. <Denckla> is wrong. She is not speaking about neurology when she says girls should be pushed into sports like soccer. At most it's been 55/45 boys/girls since 1995, most recently 52/48 http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/media_... so girls are getting plenty of "spatial" reps in. Her entire hypothesis is based on a faulty premise that there is gender bias. But, then, everything changed physiologically at puberty, and it even affects chess strength. In a world where everything affects everything, and the nature/nurture line is continually shown to be quite blurry, there is absolutely no compelling reason to ignore the powerful influence of sexual differentiation, especially when backed up by appropriate data. |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | Everett: <s4life> and besides some lobs pro-environment, you have said nothing of substance whatsoever. Thanks for clarifying that. |
|
| Feb-17-16 | | Keyser Soze: Some very nice posts <Everett>. thanks |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
