1 minute ago, proton said:

Of course there should, only on the basis of male and female. Males being far superior at the game should not be allowed to cheat against women just because they think they are one. No women has ever been in the top ranks of players, the greatest was Judit Polgar whose highest world ranking was only 7th. She may have beaten some top players but would have been crushed in a world championship against men.

You intentionally don't get my position.

There should be no separate categories based on gender in chess at all.

It's insulting to females that they've done this.

They should reconsider and abolish the separation. 

Gd

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You intentionally don't get my position.

There should be no separate categories based on gender in chess at all.

It's insulting to females that they've done this.

They should reconsider and abolish the separation. 

You cannot ignore male and female and that males are on the whole far stronger players, why do you continually support cheating against women, real ones I mean.

I might dress up as a woman to play Nemo! on the right

 

 

36 minutes ago, proton said:

You cannot ignore male and female and that males are on the whole far stronger players, why do you continually support cheating against women, real ones I mean.

I might dress up as a woman to play Nemo! on the right

 

 

I'd like to play with Nemo, too.  I might lose but who cares. 

49 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You intentionally don't get my position.

There should be no separate categories based on gender in chess at all.

It's insulting to females that they've done this.

They should reconsider and abolish the separation. 

To be fair you should first investigate the reason for the different classifications.  There are inherent natural differences between male and female which only fools would deny.  It may be due to just such a difference which exists in this case.  What would not be fair is to assume without knowing for sure based strictly on preconceived notions which may very well be incorrect.

Also, since there are undeniable differences between the sexes the mere act of pointing out what those differences are does not make on sexist.  My advise would be to restrain yourself from being so quick to claim sexism, a serious charge, when it may in fact be completely unwarranted.

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

The problem with that, is that I/we/they are accepting that trans even exist.

It does in what mind they have made themselves to believe in!

It also helps many to create a (fake) media/sports persona to make money!

Very very few have anything to do with their REAL so called identity! 

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

My advise would be to restrain yourself from being so quick to claim sexism, a serious charge, when it may in fact be completely unwarranted.

Do you mean your "advise" is unwarranted?

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

You intentionally don't get my position.

Only if you are entering into "Fools Mate"?

The Fooles Mate— Beale, The Royall Game of Chesse-Play

Black Kings Biſhops pawne one houſe.
White Kings pawne one houſe.
Black kings knights pawne two houſes

White Queen gives Mate at the contrary kings Rookes fourth houſe

 

Beale's example can be paraphrased in modern terms where White always moves first, algebraic notation is used, and Black delivers the fastest possible mate after each player makes two moves: 1.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4#

.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4#.

7 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Do you mean your "advise" is unwarranted?

Some may think so.  The poster who gave me a confused look certainly seems to think so.  Not too difficult to guess who it was.

 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Some may think so.  The poster who gave me a confused look certainly seems to think so.  Not too difficult to guess who it was.

 

Now I am confused (even more so!) by your posts!

9 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Only if you are entering into "Fools Mate"?

The Fooles Mate— Beale, The Royall Game of Chesse-Play

Black Kings Biſhops pawne one houſe.
White Kings pawne one houſe.
Black kings knights pawne two houſes

White Queen gives Mate at the contrary kings Rookes fourth houſe

 

Beale's example can be paraphrased in modern terms where White always moves first, algebraic notation is used, and Black delivers the fastest possible mate after each player makes two moves: 1.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4#

.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4#.

Indeed! Black mates on his second move.

 

There is also a mate after black's second move (white's third).

 

There are some things where the female is considerably better than a man. But not chess.

 

PS. Women do go head-to-head with men in swimming.

 

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'd like to play with Nemo, too.  I might lose but who cares. 

How could you concentrate looking at her, gorgeous

Both her mother and father were Chess Grandmasters. She is rated about 2050.

 

Swedish.

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Indeed! Black mates on his second move.

 

There is also a mate after black's second move (white's third).

 

There are some things where the female is considerably better than a man. But not chess.

 

PS. Women do go head-to-head with men in swimming.

 

I never did get heavily into chess though I love the game.  Mainly because there wasn't anyone to play with.  I won both chess tournaments in middle school but after that I just couldn't find anyone who played the game.  I recall my father played often with his friends.  But unfortunately we weren't at all close and I never played with him.

BTW, if you had to play against a female, say Nemo, what kind of moves would you use on her?  Any special strategy?  Which of her pieces would you want to take first?  Just curious as I'd imagine your thinking may have to take a departure from the usual. 

Don't be a pawn of the patriarchy!

 

Excluding trans women in women’s chess makes you a pawn of the patriarchy | Arwa Mahdavi | The Guardian

Quote

 

Trans women banned from high-level women’s chess events

As anyone who has ever played the game knows, chess pieces are deceptively heavy. Enormous hand strength and lung capacity are required to move even a tiny pawn across a board. Shifting a rook or a queen? That can exhaust a delicate lady’s fingers for weeks on end. And don’t get me started on the spatial intelligence and mental acuity required for chess. Even thinking about the game makes my poor little woman brain hurt.

 

 

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Don't be a pawn of the patriarchy!

 

Excluding trans women in women’s chess makes you a pawn of the patriarchy | Arwa Mahdavi | The Guardian

 

It must be difficult to live in a world looking through a lens which interprets everything in terms of sexism.  Not many are going to take up your banner, Jingthing, for not everyone sees the world through your lens.  There's so much more to see.

9 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Now I am confused (even more so!) by your posts!

At least I think I'm making myself clear in my posts.  State your confusion and I'll be happy to help you clear out any cobwebs.

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Don't be a pawn of the patriarchy!

 

Excluding trans women in women’s chess makes you a pawn of the patriarchy | Arwa Mahdavi | The Guardian

Activists say these stupid things simply to get attention and cause a reaction. My four-year-old niece often displays similar behavior.

 

And there's always an outlet for their attention-seeking in woke dunghills like The Guardian or the BBC.

On 8/18/2023 at 8:35 AM, EVENKEEL said:

The whatever reason could be intelligence, couldn't it?

Frankly more likely to be opportunity.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It must be difficult to live in a world looking through a lens which interprets everything in terms of sexism.  Not many are going to take up your banner, Jingthing, for not everyone sees the world through your lens.  There's so much more to see.

I find your ad hominem post shallow and absurd. 

 

Let me ask the fair minded readers this 

 

If women by their biological nature are inferior in intelligence to men, why is there even one female CEO, university department head, state governor, or head of state in the world?

 

If men and women have the same intellectual potential as I do believe they do, there should have never been any gender separation in chess competitions. 

 

You can't have it both ways.

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, if you had to play against a female, say Nemo, what kind of moves would you use on her?  Any special strategy?  Which of her pieces would you want to take first?  Just curious as I'd imagine your thinking may have to take a departure from the usual.

Nemo is new to me. A pretty girl with an unusual opening. I reckon her rating is no higher than 1500. I could handle her all right. No probs. I would use the London; if white. If black, then it would depend on her first move.

 

The lady on the left is Anna Campling. A very decent player. I would play with her, but I think she would get the better of me. However, in saying that, I think I would at least have a chance in 'classic' chess. 'Blitz', 'rapid' and the other variations i would get slaughtered.

 

I was at my best some years ago. Don't think - with my rating then of 1750 - I could beat Anna, who rates over 2000. But yer never know. One silly mistake by her, and I would be in for the check-mate.

 

On 8/18/2023 at 2:10 PM, Crossy said:

 

Yeah, I believe this is why the women-only events were organised in the first place, to get more girls into the "sport". But how a trans-woman would be at an advantage I'm not really sure.

 

 

I'm for banning them from female events on principle, as donning a dress and having silicone boobies does not make a man into a woman.

However, in something like chess I don't get why there has to be a female only category anyway.

On 8/17/2023 at 7:22 PM, Bert got kinky said:

I am totally behind banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, my reasons for this is that in most sports their is an obvious advantage to being born a male.

 

However, Chess?

This makes no sense at all.

Nonsense. How many women have been world chess champ ? Clearly they are different and that is why theres 2 categories 

3 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Nonsense. How many women have been world chess champ ? Clearly they are different and that is why theres 2 categories 

None.

 

Only a couple have ever managed to break into the top ten. But there are things that women excel at. Men couldn't compete at their level in this stuff. And good job too. Why we all want to be equal in everything.

18 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Nonsense. How many women have been world chess champ ? Clearly they are different and that is why theres 2 categories 

There is no logic to your conclusion. You  could say no albino has ever won a chess championship. So what?!? Does that prove albinos need a separate category or won't ever win? Rubbish.

 

Chess is a game of intellect.

So you're saying women are dumber.

If that isn't sexism I don't know what is.

 

yeah.

that's dumb.

there should be no distinction of sex or gender in Chess competitions at all.

being human should be the only requirement.

 

Why is even there different competitions for man and women?

What does gender have to do with Chess?

What sex was Deep Blue when it defeated Kasparov?

42 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Nonsense. How many women have been world chess champ ? Clearly they are different and that is why theres 2 categories 

Nonsense!!!!

How many man have ever won the Women's World Chess Championship and the Women's Chess Olympiad?

I don't really know. but I am willing to bet it's a number between zero and zero

 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I find your ad hominem post shallow and absurd. 

 

Let me ask the fair minded readers this 

 

If women by their biological nature are inferior in intelligence to men, why is there even one female CEO, university department head, state governor, or head of state in the world?

 

If men and women have the same intellectual potential as I do believe they do, there should have never been any gender separation in chess competitions. 

 

You can't have it both ways.

I'm a fair minded reader so therefore I qualify to respond.

Again, there are undeniable differences between men and women.  Both mental and physical.  Those differences, when mental, are not strict indicators of inferiority in intelligence.  Rather, it would have more to do with the ways in which women process information versus men.  One is not better or worse than the other.  They are merely different.

Given that then anyone can, if they so chose, deny that quite real differences exist.  And in their denial they can also, if they chose, call anyone who recognises those differences a sexist.

The fact that there are female CEOs, State governors, etc. is indeed an indication that females possess all of the attributes necessary to be successful in those roles.  Yet at the same time it should be understood that it is not merely the intellect that is solely responsible for any success.  Women also bring into play important feminine attributes which their counterparts do not either possess or possess in varying degrees.

And so again, too, there is more to this issue than perhaps what you are currently able to see.  It's a complex issue that should not be over simplified.

So the "you can't have it both ways' argument becomes inapplicable and not relevant.

42 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Why is even there different competitions for man and women?

What does gender have to do with Chess?

What sex was Deep Blue when it defeated Kasparov?

Bingo.