Invisible pieces

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 8392
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Invisible pieces

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:54 am

This article by an anonymous woman is getting some attention. It should.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Mark D Podlesak
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:32 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Mark D Podlesak » Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:47 pm

Thanks for pointing this article out Justin. Possibly the best written I've read on the subject.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:53 pm

'Nigel Short, who left school at seventeen to focus full-time on chess, has zero qualifications in the field of neuroscience. Although he seems to believe otherwise, mastery of chess does not transfer to any other sphere, especially not one as complex as the brain. He has absolutely no authority on the subject, and for him to pretend otherwise is peak charlatanism.'

Nail on head with that paragraph!

Mick Norris
Posts: 8512
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:57 pm

Mark D Podlesak wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:47 pm
Thanks for pointing this article out Justin. Possibly the best written I've read on the subject.
I'll second that

Clicking through to the forum discussion at the end is a bit depressing though, which makes the article's point somewhat
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Nick Grey
Posts: 1760
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Nick Grey » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:49 pm

Thanks Justin.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:54 pm

A recent Susan Polgar piece which touches on a number of the same themes; https://gamesmaven.io/chessdailynews/wo ... odXKDF7FFQ

Nigel Short
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Nigel Short » Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:57 am

Matt Bridgeman wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:53 pm
'Nigel Short, who left school at seventeen to focus full-time on chess, has zero qualifications in the field of neuroscience. Although he seems to believe otherwise, mastery of chess does not transfer to any other sphere, especially not one as complex as the brain. He has absolutely no authority on the subject, and for him to pretend otherwise is peak charlatanism.'

Nail on head with that paragraph!
Presumably the same necessity - for qualifications in the field of neuroscience - is required of the anonymous author? Or do double-standards and peak hypocrisy apply?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 8392
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Dec 18, 2020 7:13 am

We must never forget that Nigel.Short Being Criticised is the issue here.

(Though really, it would be better if this were about the piece written by the anonymous woman and the things she said, and not about Nigel Short.)
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Gerard Killoran » Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:41 am

Unfortunately Nigel Short has learned nothing since his initial car-crash intervention.

https://lifestyle.livemint.com/news/tal ... 19695.html

I don't have any qualifications in the field of neuroscience, but I do have great respect for those who do. One of the advantages of going to University is the discovery that however much you think you know, there's a hell of a lot you don't.

NickFaulks
Posts: 6274
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:57 am

Gerard Killoran wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:41 am
One of the advantages of going to University is the discovery that however much you think you know, there's a hell of a lot you don't.
What a ridiculous comment.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2468
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:07 pm

Hi Justin,

"...the piece written by the anonymous woman and the things she said,"

How do we know it is a woman?

From my own observations, women are just as good at men at chess. There is no way
you could tell by playing over a game at any level if a male of female player is involved.

Same as there is no way to tell if the article in question was written by an
anonymous women or an anonymous man. (the narrative keeps changing.)

And we read:

"Women don’t just hear about their own shortcomings from anonymous internet users..."

This anonymity, including the writer, runs through the whole piece:

"A titled friend of mine showed me a conversation that she’d had with a man she’d beaten..."

"This same friend..."

"...women willing to talk to me, and none of them wanted to be named."

"Men have told me..."

and this:

"I was stopped by a man who looked to be about eighty. He told me loudly,
while looking me up and down in that way that women are deeply familiar with,
that he would ‘like to play a game with [me]’.

His tone left me in no doubt as to what kind of game he was referring to.
His friend, who was equally ancient, burst out laughing, proclaiming that
he would ‘tell [the other man’s] wife!’.

Who, where and when? It sounds apocryphal.

And Nigel's does comes under attack (twice!) so he is correct in defending himself.

His observations as an experienced chess player have been blown up all out
of proportion and he is often mis-quoted.

I'm afraid Nigel's piece , which he put his name too, will still be used in 57 years
time like Fischer's 'Knight Odds' is.

Which brings us on nicely too: "The recently unearthed 'remarkable' 1963 video."

It kicks off with the news that Lisa lane has falling in love and cannot play.

I've been around the chessboard for a few years, yet to hear a man use
that one as an excuse. (And I've heard and used them all.)

So Lisa did no favours to women's chess there. Sadly It sets the tone for the whole interview.
The interviewer knew nothing about chess and a giggling awkward Fischer seems to play along.

Fischer names as the current female world champion: 'Elisaveta Bykova.'
I've just been looking at chessgames. com. 86 games, all v women.
so we can possibly see where Bobby got the '...they don't play in men's tournaments' from.
(I've looked at a few of her games, I doubt he could have given her Knight odds...unless she was in love... :wink: )

Then Fischer states women cannot cook! The whole vid is a joke.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:20 pm

Gerard Killoran wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:41 am
Unfortunately Nigel Short has learned nothing since his initial car-crash intervention.

https://lifestyle.livemint.com/news/tal ... 19695.html

I don't have any qualifications in the field of neuroscience, but I do have great respect for those who do. One of the advantages of going to University is the discovery that however much you think you know, there's a hell of a lot you don't.
I would imagine if Nigel keeps pushing those neurosexist beliefs in further articles he’s probably on the verge of getting himself a lot of negative press all over again. Maybe he enjoys this, I really don’t know?! Though I suspect post #me too, and in the present cancel culture, the ride out might be a lot rougher than in 2015.

As an aside, I’d think if you had a deputy chief constable giving press interviews and saying things to the effect of, ‘well you know our Asians still need a bit of help becoming police officers, so we positively discriminate, but I think positive discrimination is still discrimination really,’ I think that person in a position of power would be in hot water quicker than The Penguin plays bullet chess from a disciplinary point of view. Their force would see through to the underlying racism and strongly feel that person is bringing the organisation into disrepute.

Is it really still your belief Nigel that lower rating isn’t simply a by-product of 5-15% comparative country participation rates of female players?

And yes, Justin is right, the anonymous essay does need proper attention. It isn’t all about Nigel Short. But from the point of view of a chess parent of a budding chess playing daughter, I find having to listen to the biggest voice in English chess pushing his sexist world view into chess quite insufferable.
Last edited by Matt Bridgeman on Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Gerard Killoran » Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:22 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:57 am
Gerard Killoran wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:41 am
One of the advantages of going to University is the discovery that however much you think you know, there's a hell of a lot you don't.
What a ridiculous comment.
Ah, a know-it-all!

NickFaulks
Posts: 6274
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:24 pm

Matt Bridgeman wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:20 pm
Is it really still your belief Nigel that lower rating isn’t simply a by-product of 5-15% comparative country participation rates of female players?
I can't speak for Nigel, but that line of argument has always been faulty.

If the absence of women from the list of top players is a problem that needs fixing ( a philosophical discussion I leave to others ), then proposing bogus reasons for it is not a helpful first step.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:29 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:24 pm
Matt Bridgeman wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:20 pm
Is it really still your belief Nigel that lower rating isn’t simply a by-product of 5-15% comparative country participation rates of female players?
I can't speak for Nigel, but that line of argument has always been faulty.

If the absence of women from the list of top players is a problem that needs fixing ( a philosophical discussion I leave to others ), then proposing bogus reasons for it is not a helpful first step.
So you use the word bogus there, which means counterfeit or fake. Why are you saying this is a fake reason?

Post Reply