Invisible pieces

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Gerard Killoran » Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:25 am

John McKenna wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:52 pm

I thought you might have been educated by Jesuits.
What an interesting remark, I wonder what provoked it.

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:43 am

John McKenna wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:43 pm
Thanks, Matt.

Informative about the author and the journalist, to a degree, but it looks like a plug for her book from around the date that it was published - in 2019, Feb.

It does not appear to be directly comparable to the older (2014 Feb.) article I linked to, further above, since it seems to be based on extracts from her book that address the "gendered brain" (or lack of it) mainly in general.

In order to make a comparison of my link (to 2014) with yours (to 2019) one would have to have access to the rest of her book to garner more specific technical details of what has been happening in the field of "cognitive neuroimaging".

A couple of quick observations about the article you link to -

"... For example, once any differences in brain size were accounted for, 'well-known' sex differences in key structures disappeared... "

I suppose the book may explain the above touch of legerdemain ("sleight of hand") as applied to 'size'.

It goes on -

"Which is when the penny dropped: perhaps it was time to abandon the age-old search for the differences between brains from men and brains from women."

Perhaps not entirely, though, because it continues -

"Are there any significant differences based on sex alone? The answer, she says, is no. To suggest otherwise is 'neurofoolishness'."

Then further on in the article "neurofoolishness" rears its ugly head, again, with a slip of the tongue?

"... Brains reflect the lives they have lived, not just the sex of their owners...

"Not just"? Not appreciably at all would be more in keeping with the thrust of the argument in the book.
I don’t think ‘size’ of brain is associated with higher intelligence or processing power so to speak. That’s probably a concept that’s fallen by the wayside as scientific studies have advanced.

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/2 ... -study.htm

Mick Norris
Posts: 8520
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:29 am

Gerard Killoran wrote:
Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:25 am
John McKenna wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:52 pm

I thought you might have been educated by Jesuits.
What an interesting remark, I wonder what provoked it.
Yes, I thought that too (speaking as someone who was "educated" by Jesuits; how can you tell?)
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

John McKenna
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:54 pm

Matt Bridgeman wrote:
Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:43 am
John McKenna wrote:
Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:43 pm
Thanks, Matt.

Informative about the author and the journalist, to a degree, but it looks like a plug for her book from around the date that it was published - in 2019, Feb.

It does not appear to be directly comparable to the older (2014 Feb.) article I linked to, further above, since it seems to be based on extracts from her book that address the "gendered brain" (or lack of it) mainly in general.

In order to make a comparison of my link (to 2014) with yours (to 2019) one would have to have access to the rest of her book to garner more specific technical details of what has been happening in the field of "cognitive neuroimaging".

A couple of quick observations about the article you link to -

"... For example, once any differences in brain size were accounted for, 'well-known' sex differences in key structures disappeared... "

I suppose the book may explain the above touch of legerdemain ("sleight of hand") as applied to 'size'.

It goes on -

"Which is when the penny dropped: perhaps it was time to abandon the age-old search for the differences between brains from men and brains from women."

Perhaps not entirely, though, because it continues -

"Are there any significant differences based on sex alone? The answer, she says, is no. To suggest otherwise is 'neurofoolishness'."

Then further on in the article "neurofoolishness" rears its ugly head, again, with a slip of the tongue?

"... Brains reflect the lives they have lived, not just the sex of their owners...

"Not just"? Not appreciably at all would be more in keeping with the thrust of the argument in the book.
I don’t think ‘size’ of brain is associated with higher intelligence or processing power so to speak. That’s probably a concept that’s fallen by the wayside as scientific studies have advanced.

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/2 ... -study.htm
Ah, another new study to refute all the previous ones. At least that's what is usually claimed in order to get it up there in lights.

Is not this more likely to be more like the actual state of play?
A Final Word

The subject of brain size and its relation to intelligence can be a delicate one, particularly given the charged and controversial history of xenophobia and racism inherent in assessments of cognitive ability. What researchers have found, however, is that brain size alone does not dictate intelligence. There are environmental, cultural, educational and genetic factors, many of which are difficult, if not impossible to quantify. The best guess from researchers and specialists is that a larger brain size may provide a foundational advantage for acquiring intelligence, based purely on capacity, but the actual development of intelligence depends on the efficiency with which different areas of the brain communicate and interact, a trait that can be managed and affected by our individual choices and experiences.
https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/does- ... atter.html
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2475
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Geoff Chandler » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:35 pm

Hi,

Re-Reading KINGPIN 38. Spring 2008 (and why not?)

https://www.kingpinchess.net/2013/06/ki ... ssue-38-2/

Sorry but that is just an advert where to pick up the mag not a link to review I will be talking about.

There is a page and half book review by Sarah Hurst on 'Chess Bitch' by Jennifer Shahade.

Image

First time I've ever seen the 'N' word, gays mentioned as queers and menstruation in a chess book review.
But it's not done to offend or startle the reader, the reviewer is doing her job.

The piece is highlighted by a quote from the book:

'Journalist and fans do not go around commentating on the size of Kasparov's cock.'

Which in one sentence goes a long way to telling us what is wrong. And it's also more gutsy.

Sarah writes:

"Will women ever play chess as well as men? If not, is it because of the structure of their brains."

Now of course I am reading between the lines of a basically well written review but it would appear
Jennifer touches on the subject of brain structure. So maybe, unless everyone is really enjoying themselves,
someone who has the book can tell us what Jennifer says instead of dragging 'experts' into it.

Of course Jennifer may quote some of her own experts, the review does not mention it, but if we can unearth
a few more to experts to quote, misquote, agree with or challenge then I say bring them to the party.

Did a search here to see if it has been discussed before, found nothing.
Which somehow does not surprise me as this is a male dominated site.

I'd love to see a female only chess site, I wonder if they have nit-pickers (I won't point you out you know who your are.)
Maybe male brains are hard- wired to pick fault and argue needlessly about anything...and enjoy it. (I do!)
When you think about it chess, the game, is nit-picking and arguing about each others moves and men enjoy it.
I have just solved the debate - Carl, closed this thread!

Here:

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/200 ... ment-12383

Jennifer appears telling you about the difficulty she had with the title of her book 'Chess Bitch.' and the NY times.

John McKenna
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:10 pm

You can always raise eyebrows, get loads of laughs and lower the tone.

Did you also write this line for Reagan's Berlin speech -

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Not that I'm unhappy to see this debate closed.

After all I came late to the party and I've outstayed my welcome.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2475
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Geoff Chandler » Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:39 pm

Hi John,

Me?

Not too sure if I lowered the tone, just repeating a book review on thread topic.
I was not to sure about using 'queer' but what else, the 'Q' word - people may think 'Queen.'
and I'm making jokes, puns etc....it had to go in full.

' menstruation' a word I cannot ever recall using before. But there is nothing wrong with that.
The review is quoting a joke from the book about it.
(I think it's a joke - a female player said she based her openings on her 'M' cycle.)
Last edited by Geoff Chandler on Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

John McKenna
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by John McKenna » Tue Jan 05, 2021 9:38 pm

Thanks for the explication, Geoff.

You cannot be serious.

Jokes about jokes...

Queer words...

The weekend comes the 'M' cycle hums...

All remind me of happier days.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Gerard Killoran » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:59 pm

Could John McKenna explain his 'Jesuit' comment in reference to me.

John McKenna
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by John McKenna » Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:02 am

Gerard, it's no big deal...

Something I read about the history of Killoran House.

There's a tenuous connection to the Jesuits.

Nothing personal was meant really just a little bit of word association of my own.

Best...
John
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Gerard Killoran » Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:26 am

John McKenna wrote:
Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:02 am
Gerard, it's no big deal...

Something I read about the history of Killoran House.

There's a tenuous connection to the Jesuits.

Nothing personal was meant really just a little bit of word association of my own.

Best...
John
I have no idea what or where 'Killoran House' is, or what connection - however tenuous - it has with the Jesuits. Google has been no help. Please enlighten me.

John McKenna
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by John McKenna » Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:39 pm

Gladly -

"... By the time Solomon Lalor Cambie inherited the former Lalor estate at Killoran in the following century he must also have been a Catholic (since he was educated by the Jesuits at Clongowes Wood College)...

https://theirishaesthete.com/2020/11/16/killoran/

(I hope this detour is now over and the thread can return to matters more pertinent to its origins or be closed to further traffic.)
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Matt Bridgeman
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:03 pm

I don’t think the thread should be closed as there may be other female players who might want to talk about their experiences at some point.

John McKenna
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by John McKenna » Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:33 pm

Others may believe they are protecting women from potential abuse here.

Anyway, females hardly ever frequent this forum (Helen M's recent contribution was a breath of fresh air in a stale, male atmosphere) any longer so may be said to be protecting themselves.

Therefore the thread can most probably continue without much ado irrespective of the gender of posters.

(NB: The perennial culture war has moved on to pastures new so peace may prevail here for a while.)
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2475
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Geoff Chandler » Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:10 pm

Hi Guys,

Still no details from anyone who has 'Chess Bitch.' Maybe, and just maybe, none us men here bought it.

I'll be most annoyed if I have use some of my Christmas book tokens on it.
If I do I'll have to order it and if I can get away with ordering it and not paying for it up front then I will.
I'll pop back in 3 months time to pick it up cheap from the remainder unclaimed books section.

Sarah Hurst mentions there is some chess the back of book. But that's no good to me.
Maybe she should have gave games and sneaked in all the details in the game notes.
Also the title, how about: 'Chess Openings for Chess Bitches.' (any chess title with the word 'Opening' in it sells.)

Apparently the majority of male chess players (this is from Sarah again - the book review
may actually be better than the book!) suffer from depression, paranoia, alcoholism and
just plain eccentricity. (I blame the Jesuit Monks!). Female players do not.

I'd agree, all the female players I know are stable compared to the male social misfits you see at chess tournaments.

So I think, at long last, we are getting to the hub of the matter.
Men are hard wired differently from each other. You have the normals and then the chess players.

Of course you do get female eccentrics but they are not attracted to chess.
You will find them among school teachers, doctors, professors, scientists...
people who do good for the benefit of...er...mankind.

The craziest (but yet sane) girl I know is a highly paid mathematician.
When she is not doing her sums, or whatever it is mathematicians do, she is completely loveable bonkers.

She appeared on 'Pointless' with her boyfriend (a normal ) and picked up £2,000.
I did suggest: 'You should turn that wonderful brain of yours to chess' but she just wrinkled
up her nose and gave me that look: 'What? And end up like you.'

Pity, I've seen her deal with wise guy Don Juan's, she verbally castrates them.

Post Reply