Knight to Pawn Four. Check and Bullshit.
Wherever there is a league of sports, there is a separate and exclusive women’s league to weep in its shadow. That’s because a man playing against a woman in any sport is like Superman playing against a team of cacti wearing funny, oversized sunglasses.
It’s cute and hilarious.
Man has proven his physical prowess for millions of years — even when it was completely unnecessary to do so. Actually, in the end that turned out to be the proof. All you men know what I’m talking about there.
However, what if it wasn’t just our mighty strength that kept women hopelessly tethered to the Earth while we men soared above like gods in our awe-inspiring spectacles of sport? What if was also because women aren’t as smart as men? That is to say, because men are smarter than women.
Certainly that makes sense to us men, but unlike women, we would also like a side order of proof with our meal. Let’s think for a moment. If only women had their own league and championship for a sport that was entirely mental, like chess.
They do.
Woah, wait a minute. They do? Can someone please flag down the Obvious Express delivery truck? I think the delivery man forget a box of clues in the back addressed to women world-wide.
I thought this women’s chess championship might be some kind of publicity stunt — like last year when that one woman “played” golf in the men’s league and Nike milked their biggest cash cow to date: female empowerment. Completely masculine kudos to those brilliant men at Nike marketing by the way because that’s one ripe motherfucking cow.
I discovered, however, that it wasn’t a joke at all. Disappointingly, it also wasn’t a bunch of models playing chess in lingerie. That’s when I decided that any further research was a waste of my invaluable time.
Women’s leagues of anything are like midgets following men around dressed up exactly like them. They look the same, but come on. What are you serious here?
Related Articles:
January 16th, 2006 at 10:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: cbc856ab3c6ed
Suan Polgar is the only world champion to win the triple-crown in chess. She
earned the ultimate Men’s Grandmaster title, as well as the first woman to
qualify for the Men’s World Championship Zonal Tournament. On September
18-19, 2004, she competed in the first ever Clash of the Titans - Battle of
two world champions against 7- time world champion Anatoly Karpov. The match
ended in a 3-3 tie. She also won the 2003 US Open Blitz Championship, an
open even for both men and women. If nobody believes any of this, all they
have to do is visit:
http://www.uschess.org/news/bio/2004uswomenolympiadteam.pdf.
January 17th, 2006 at 8:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
I see that redtygrr, Samantha, and Sally (posting elsewhere on women and math) are all posting from the same IP address within minutes of one another. Interesting.
From Samantha’s link
What about Danica Patrick? Oh wait, good point, she’s 105lbs and her competitors are 160lb. A 55lb advantage in a racing car is significant. OK, right, despite their weight advantage, women can’t compete with men in racing, presumably because men are better than women.
In chess? You prove our point, Samantha/Sally/redtygrr/FemaleMark3/whatever alias you choose to adopt next (or “friend” to bring in to post the same opinions from the same IP address within minutes of each other).
Polgar’s playing Karpov is indicative of nothing. Computers have played (and beaten) Karpov. The guy needs money, fair enough. Are you saying computers are better than women?
Now, on Ms. Polgar (it’s Susan, btw, not Suan). Dick may disagree with me, but I have no objection to the idea that there are individual women that are better than men at something. For example, I suspect Susan Polgar would trash me at chess (I’m a pretty awful player) blindfolded and half asleep. Does that prove women are better than men at chess? No. It proves that an exceptional women is better than most men at chess.
The real question, for me, is this: how many women are exceptional?
Very, very few.
If you know anything about statistics, picture a bell curve, with competency being the horizontal axis and percentage of the population being the vertical. The average of both genders in mental capability is roughly the same, at 0. (men are much stronger and faster; women are better at living longer, and possibly on average on verbal issues).
But is the average important? Heck no. Do you pick an average person to do neurosurgery on your mother or father? No! You want the very best.
The standard deviations — the shape of the bell curve — are important. A smaller standard deviation (stats talk) means a more typical bell shape, most are grouped between a fairly tight range. A higher standard deviation means a much “flatter” bell, with many more people in the extremes — extremely good, or extremely bad. (This is how the average of both groups stays the same).
It is a statistical fact that women have tighter standard deviations.
This means that there can easily be a 10 (or even 100) to one ratio in the number of highly talented men to highly talented women.
On the other hand, there is similarly a range between 10 and 100 of highly stupid men to highly stupid women.
So. If the “average” is important to you, then men are roughly the same as women (ignoring morality, honour, integrity, decency, strength, speed, stamina, etc.).
But if you want an above average person to be helping you, the odds are good that he will be male. If you want an exceptional person helping you, the odds are 90-99% that he will be male.
Does that mean that exceptional women don’t exist? Of course not. There is that 1-10% chance that she will be female.
I’m not sure any woman reading this board will grasp what I’ve said. Or be willing to.
But it’s at the heart of many, many things, and it’s sincere and serious.
-wolfe
January 17th, 2006 at 8:31 am - IP Man-Hash: cbc856ab3c6ed
January 17th, 2006 at 8:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
wolfe Says:
Polgar’s playing Karpov is indicative of nothing. Computers have played (and beaten) Karpov. The guy needs money, fair enough. Are you saying computers are better than women?
Well then, computers must be better than both men and women. As for the guy needing money, some men will use any excuse for losing to a woman.
wolfe Says:
it’s Susan, btw, not Suan).
That was a typo, it can happen to anyone.
wolfe Says:
The real question, for me, is this: how many women are exceptional?
Very, very few.
How many MEN are exceptional? Very, very few.
wolfe Says:
Does that prove women are better than men at chess? No. It proves that an exceptional women is better than most men at chess.
She tied the men’s world champion 3-3!
wolfe Says:
Does that mean that exceptional women don’t exist? Of course not. There is that 1-10% chance that she will be female.
Where in the world do you get your statistics?
January 17th, 2006 at 8:45 am - IP Man-Hash: cbc856ab3c6ed
January 17th, 2006 at 8:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
wolfe Says:
Polgar’s playing Karpov is indicative of nothing. Computers have played (and
beaten) Karpov. The guy needs money, fair enough. Are you saying computers
are better than women?
Well then, computers must be better than both men and women. As for the guy
needing money, some men will use any excuse for losing to a woman.
wolfe Says:
it’s Susan, btw, not Suan).
That was a typo, it can happen to anyone.
wolfe Says:
The real question, for me, is this: how many women are exceptional?
Very, very few.
How many MEN are exceptional? Very, very few.
wolfe Says:
Does that prove women are better than men at chess? No. It proves that an
exceptional women is better than most men at chess.
She tied the men’s world champion 3-3!
wolfe Says:
Does that mean that exceptional women don’t exist? Of course not. There is
that 1-10% chance that she will be female.
Where in the world do you get your statistics?
January 17th, 2006 at 7:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8a7ccbca7a904
Game, set and checkmate Wolfe. Well stated.
I am somewhat not amazed at the sudden rush of these femmies and their consistant use of a similar IP address, it may be a ploy maybe. Another harpie still trying to convince us how “perfect” that spoilt sex really is.
I am waiting for the summons of another couple of her feminasties to enlighting us once again on what they derived from the male-hating “wommyns Studies” indoctination centre or maybe do a Nicole and summon a male’s input, try and manipulte the conversation and try also to alter the obvious ending and that is you’re just another troll.
I really do not know what you are trying to prove here !
Wommin have lost the plot. What it’s really saying is ” you have to respect us because we say so”, really does not work here.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:21 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Dick, I’d appreciate it if you could leave her double post on this one occasion.. I know you like to clean things up, but I think her double post is almost a form of art, given what she was attempting to say.
Samantha, you do realize Karpov became world champion in 1975? Saying she beat the world champ would be like her dancing on Ali’s grave and saying she beat the world boxing champ. The arguments you make are laugable, even a little tasteless; you simply undermine your own cause. (Oh, and sorry for the “Suan” comment; as long as you refrain from making fun of typos others make on this site, I should and shall refrain from doing so for you.)
I give you points for trying, but minus several million for good thinking.
Wolfe said:
Samantha/Sally/redtygrr said:
Samantha, you only have to read my post again to see.
I normally wouldn’t quote a post praising what I said. But, thanks Christian, in this case (as usual) your comments are spot on.
-wolfe
January 19th, 2006 at 7:06 am - IP Man-Hash: 61cba250d9f5b
Notice anything the same here ?
Good pickup Wolfe, Females are totally indifferent to lying and cheating. This we already know, but just to prove it again and again is delicious.
The same IP hash number demonstrates another female liar and another female fake.
redtygrr Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 5:41 pm - IP Man-Hash: cbc856ab3c6ed
Samantha Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 10:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: cbc856ab3c6ed
Sally Says:
January 16th, 2006 at 10:17 pm- IP Man-Hash: cbc856ab3c6ed
January 19th, 2006 at 6:31 pm - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
I guess she just wanted all the voices in her head to have different names, Christian J. Must be tough keeping track of them.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Ah. Maybe I can clear it up. Redtygrr, or whatever her name was, was posting dozens of links with no explanation. Then, when I deleted them because they add no value and waste everyone’s time, she copied and pasted enormous chunks of text into the comment box.
By changing her name, she sought to outsmart the spam filter. She, however, did not. It was only until she cleaned up her act that her posts got through.
-Dick
January 19th, 2006 at 9:16 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3e513170dd78c
Dick Masterson said:
Ah. Maybe I can clear it up. Redtygrr, or whatever her name was, was posting dozens of links with no explanation. Then, when I deleted them because they add no value and waste everyone’s time, she copied and pasted enormous chunks of text into the comment box.
By changing her name, she sought to outsmart the spam filter. She, however, did not. It was only until she cleaned up her act that her posts got through.
-Dick
-I wonder why people that want to prove a point on here, try to pull such obvious bullshit?
June 6th, 2007 at 10:07 am - IP Man-Hash: 83b7e402ade4c
I think we should no longer use the word “women” we should just remove the men part and refer to them as “Wo”
Same with “female” ….. just use “fe”
From now on that’s how I’m referring to them.
Men are better than Wo!
June 6th, 2007 at 11:46 am - IP Man-Hash: b6f97ac8a94a7
women always want the last word though in this forum, it wont be given to them. heh
June 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 83b7e402ade4c
There should be ZERO words from women at all here.
This is for men only.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:20 am - IP Man-Hash: 44b483a5b1b96
I’m coming into this conversation about 2 years late, however I do want to say that both parties here are off. The men start out by straight insulting women’s abilities, not at chess, but at everything. Yes men are physically stronger, and yes, men are usually better chess players. Being an avid chess player myself, I’d say one of the main reasons for that though is simply…….. you never see women playing chess…….. I’ve seen women beat men at chess and visa versa but all in all like women mentioning men and cooking they just don’t give a damn so they don’t get good at it. However, you women come in and try to defend yourself against the men by doing the exact same god damn thing they’re doing and insulting them for it! Coming in and insulting men because they’re insulting women. It’s pretty sad to read this bullshit from both parties. Learn this one simple fact: It ALWAYS depends on the person. Not to mention I think the majority of us are supposed to be chess players in here meaning, in all reality, we should be some pretty bright people. But so far based on the comments I’ve read……… I’m pretty sure I can beat all of you at chess. Man or woman.
………..by the way in case you are wondering I am a male.
Grow the fuck up all of you
and yes I do like adding “……” when it’s not really necessary.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
I don’t see any women driving either.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:21 am - IP Man-Hash: 19968a06a2a3c
That insult really gets your point across. I just love having my intelligence insulted by someone who thinks s/he’s superior to me, especially when they just burst right out somewhere like a girl on a football team. Great job there, man.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:45 am - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
@doubt, and gentlemen: Tribble’s post is unexceptional, s/he seems confused between logic and insult. I think therefore Tribble is fundamentally in error, but fair enough. However, the statement “by the way in case you are wondering I am a male.” has some serious consequences.
I quote Law 6 of the Laws of Women:
-wolfe
January 26th, 2008 at 11:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2bb6eaa4b0a64
unlike women, men have a need to make sense…
January 26th, 2008 at 11:59 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2bb6eaa4b0a64
emerald beats the shit outta rachael ray or any other female chef’s…
Men ARE better cooks, and chefs, than women.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:21 am - IP Man-Hash: 815f3775cf668
HAHA I agree wholeheartedly with you, dick. And, I also call an exception to this rule… there is one woman in sports that, in her field, she’d destroy any man she played against, and that’s Jeanette Lee, Billiards champion and master of more trick shots than george bush at a 9/11 press conference. This is no ordinary woman, at least on the pool table. Deemed “The Black Widow”, she’s got seriuos skill that would rival or beat any man in the sport, hands down. She’s not always champion either, which is another testiment to her greatness. Any great pool player knows the real money is in the green room, away from the cameras, and being champion all but shuts that door for you. Watchin her play other women is like watching a cat play with a one-legged mouse. She is very skilled, and at least as skilled as any man in the sport. Period. HOWEVER, she is a freak of nature, and an exception to the rule. Why? Because she has genuine confidence, discipline, logic, and intelligence. Three qualities that women are not equipped with, and unfortunately can’t be found on the shelves at the local Hecht’s. Which makes Mrs. Lee MY honourary man of the century.
AND! she’s hot too.
~Manos.