Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 09:11:24 04/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 1998 at 23:54:59, Don Dailey wrote: >Hi Fernando, > >I have no personal agenda when it comes to this issue and would not >"flame" anyone for their point of view. I feel like there are >a lot of unknowns here so I would be hard pressed to refute anyone elses >opinion unless it was completely unreasonable. My own opinion is not >well formed on this issue either, so I realize I could be quite wrong in >my opinion that the sexes are fairly balanced in chess skill. Since >so few women are interested in competing at chess, it makes it quite >difficult to get any real sense of it. It's only my "best guess" that >we are probably pretty close, but I give women the edge for now. I >base this mainly on the fact that out of such a tiny fraction of female >tournament players, there probably shouldn't be one in the top 10 but >there is! But of course I know there are reasonable arguments on why >this is so, therefore I don't have a strong opinion on this. > >I remember a few years ago Stefan Edberg (the tennis player) made some >offhand comment about no female being able to even come close to beating >him. He was not bragging, he was just responding honestly to a question >on the subject. I remember he was really blasted for his remark. I >viewed >that as being really unfair to Stefan because he was speaking completely >frankly and truthfully. Being analytical as most of us on this >newsgroup >are, we like to speculate on this kind of thing. It should be expected >that the opinions will cover a wide range of beliefs. Since most >people >agree men and women are different it should be no surprise that we want >to analyze the ways we are different. > >But maybe this is for another newsgroup ... ? > Well, yes and not. I believe that sometimes you get an extra interest in a gropu when sometimes you discuss there matters that not belongs to it. A way to remember that we are real persons after all, with a variety of interest beyond the issue treated in the group, this or any other. And now, returning to our first concern here, I would ike to ask you whether you are engaged or not in some commercial effor in chess computers. I rememnber now that I touched something of this with you time ago with respect to Cilkchess and I believe to to remember that you mentioned some chance to produce a commercial version of it, but maybe I am completely mistaken. In the past you worked with larry in a some very nice proyects. I have and I still play Kasparov gambit -patched version- that certainly should have deserved a lot more credit that he received. I have also Socrates. Nothing of the sort for the moment, with or without Larry? Cheers Fernando >- Don > > >On April 25, 1998 at 15:40:46, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On April 25, 1998 at 13:25:57, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 1998 at 11:17:47, mick adams wrote: >>> >>>>It seems to me fairly academic, that if, Judit Polgar were to play Bobby >>>>Fischer in Reykjavic,right now,the outcome,would,indubitally(or without >>>>doubt)favour the male of the species,and why is this?Surely not because >>>>Judit is a female!No perhaps it is because,in Reykjavic the environement >>>>conspires against the human race,no right-minded turnip,would surely >>>>know the difference.Judit is fantastic! i love her,but you know so is >>>>Bobby,and he's all grown up,and i don't think he was designed upon to >>>>the same extent as sister POLGAR.If,Judit becomes peregnant,her cute >>>>play agin masters of the ilk of Korchnoi,will be seen in true >>>>light.micky. >>> >>>I beg to differ, but it seems highly unlikely that the current Bobby >>>Fischer could win a match against Judit Polgar. I haven't been >>>following >>>this thread so I hope my comment is not out of context somehow. >>> >>>But since I'm here, I might as well throw my 2 cents in and hope these >>>comments are not out of context. I believe it is likely (after >>>sorting >>>out millions of environmental factors) that men and women are not >>>exactly >>>the same intellectually. Based on Judit's performance the evidence is >>>on the side of female superiority at chess. I'm basing this on the fact >>>that percentage-wise, VERY FEW women persue chess compared to men. This >>>of course is not a strong case because there are many arguments that >>>could >>>be offered as to why this is so. But I've always prefered hard >>>evidence >>>over lot's of speculation which I've learned over the years is quite >>>unreliable. >>> >>>My gut intuition (which I rarely trust) is that neither sex has a basic >>>inherited advantage (on the average) over the other. I strongly suspect >>>both sexes bring (again this is a broad generalization that only applies >>>to the average, not individual case) their own strengths and weaknesses >>>to the game. >>> >>>But surely if there turned out to be a sex advantage in chess for one >>>side >>>over the other it must be so small as to be practically immeasurable. >>> >>>But isn't it best just to judge each person on his own merit? After >>>all, >>>who of us in this newsgroup has any chance whatsoever against Judit >>>Polgar? >>> >>>- Don >> >> >> >>Hi Don: >>This thread begun with a question about why women almost does not appear >>in this field of computer chess and then I posted saying that maybe was >>necesary to take into account the statiscal fact that women tends to >>appear in increasingly LESS percentage of the samples as much as you go >>to the extremes of the IQ curve. My supposition was -and is- that there >>are some activities that tends to require a high degree of gusto for >>intellectual perfomance AND that this last gusto is associated with high >>IQ. So, as much as less women have high IQ than men -although in both >>sexes the percentage is small respect to all population-, then it >>follows naturally that a minor portion of women will appears interested >>in chess and programming. But, of course, if for any reason a woman is >>anyway interested and is there, chess os science, no matter what, of >>course you cannot do any conclusion about her ability and capacity with >>respect to any other chess player or scientist, male or female. I think >>that this line of thought is logical and baeed in facts of statistics >>and common experiebnce of any of us. >>Now: >>a) That does not mean that no women can have hight IQ, performs in >>sciences, etc. >>b) Does no means, either, that IQ is the only criteria to measure mental >>perfomance. >>c) Less that I was beginning a sexist movement. >>Nevertheless, i was shot from all sides. As Bruce said, this is sensible >>issue that better not to touch anyway and he is right in that. >>Nevrtheless, recognizing my lack of tact, I would insist that no matter >>what can be said to create a feeling of equality, facts are facts; women >>does not appears in force in this and other fields where high >>intellectual effort and perfomance is needed. Of course, maybe that does >>not matter at all. As many has done here, you can write a filosophy >>about all this and make an speech about human rights, broterhood, etc. I >>wellingly subscribe all thta filosophy, but...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.