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 » Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:34 pm

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.
In fact, the Chairman of the Football Association, Greg Clarke, was forced to resign for using inappropriate language, while supporting positive discrimination.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Nick Burrows » Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:40 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:07 pm
How do we know it is a woman?
I have it on good authority that this article was written by Nigel Short.

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Nigel Short » Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:25 pm

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

Yes, Matt Bridgeman, I believe that the lower rating of women players is not entirely a product of participation rates. I am in good company. David Smerdon, at the University of Queensland, who has published various academic papers and articles on the subject of women in chess, concurs with me ("There are certainly fewer female chess players to begin with, but it appears unlikely participation can explain the whole story" - https://theconversation.com/whats-behin ... ess-150637) He refers to, among other things, the following paper published by the Royal Society (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2009.2257).

The following article (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-ge ... evel-chess) by Jose Comacho Collados - an AI researcher and lecturer at Cardiff University - is also critical of the statistical methods used by those who argue the hypothesis that "participation rates explain everything" , as Professor Ma did in his recent article for ChessBase.

So, Mr Bridgeman, you can be as personally rude and offensive as you like towards me. The mere fact that you are exceptionally bad-mannered and insulting does not make you any the righter. Your ad hominem attacks generate heat, but no light.

For those actually interested in science - rather than heaping abuse on others - the "stereotype threat" referred to by David Smerdon, does seem to be genuine phenomenon. However this only accounts for about 30 Elo points of the 150 Elo point gap between men and women. Rather than shouting people down with ignorant and spiteful remarks, perhaps, Mr Bridgeman, you should look at the matter with open eyes and be a little more respectful.

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:41 pm

Nigel it’s all very well throwing out some sources, but I don’t believe for a second David Smerdon is on board with your woman’s brains are different argument. You get a mention that’s all! And trotting out Royal Society papers from ten years ago isn’t as impressive as it first looks when you have bang up to date publications such as The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience That Shatters The Myth Of The Female Brain by Gina Ripon out there now. I think rudeness is quite justified when your point of view is clearly as toxic as it appears.

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:46 pm

Matt Bridgeman wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:29 pm
So you use the word bogus there, which means counterfeit or fake. Why are you saying this is a fake reason?
There is an assumption that if you get ten times as many members of some group onto the rating list, then in due course you will have ten times as many GMs. Need I go on?


edited to show context, which may have got lost.
Last edited by NickFaulks on Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

John Moore
Posts: 2075
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by John Moore » Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:52 pm

Matt Bridgeman wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:41 pm
Nigel it’s all very well throwing out some sources, but I don’t believe for a second David Smerdon is on board with your woman’s brains are different argument. You get a mention that’s all! And trotting out Royal Society papers from ten years ago isn’t as impressive as it first looks when you have bang up to date publications such as The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience That Shatters The Myth Of The Female Brain by Gina Ripon out there now. I think rudeness is quite justified when your point of view is clearly as toxic as it appears.
Just to help people looking it up, Rippon has 2 ps in her name.

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 3:53 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
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?
Because they say so and because they also give some very good reasons because a woman might wish to remain anonymous and because you might like to think about respecting those reasons.
Nigel Short wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:25 pm
The mere fact that you are exceptionally bad-mannered and insulting
Nigel may know nothing about neuroscience, but it's fair to say that he's a master in more fields than one.
Nigel Short wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:25 pm

The following article (https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-ge ... evel-chess) by Jose Comacho Collados - an AI researcher and lecturer at Cardiff University - is also critical of the statistical methods used by those who argue the hypothesis that "participation rates explain everything" , as Professor Ma did in his recent article for ChessBase.
Although he in no way suggests that biological differences between men and women account for the difference, which may in turn be the difference between his scientific approach and the garbage that got published in New In Chess.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Nigel Short » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:10 pm

Mr Bridgeman, you say, without the slightest evidence "but I don’t believe for a second David Smerdon is on board with your woman’s brains are different argument." To quote David Smerdon from this Tuesday:

"I'm not sure why anyone denies that there could be biological reasons for the gap. Also not sure why you were vilified so highly".

You also quote, with gushing approval, Gina Rippon's book "The Gendered Brain", as if this is the final word on the subject. It is most certainly not. To quote Simon Baron-Cohen FBA FBPsS FMedSci:

"most biologists and neuroscientists agree that prenatal biology and culture combine to explain average sex differences in the brain". He goes on to say that Rippon "[boxes] herself into an extremist position by arguing that it’s all culture and no biology". Yes that is "extremist" - not mainstream.

The are differences of opinion on this subject. It is possible to discuss this in a civilised manner. You, however, continue to be exceptionally rude and offensive towards me for no reason other than that you clearly enjoy it. You are nothing but a filthy troll.

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 4:11 pm

Nigel Short complains that the author is not a neuroscientist, fails to answer the objections made by neuroscientists to his theory of hardwired gendered brains, and then quotes sources - none of which are neuroscientists. Baron Cohen is a psychologist.

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 4:13 pm

Nigel Short wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:10 pm
You, however, continue to be exceptionally rude and offensive towards me for no reason other than that you clearly enjoy it. You are nothing but a filthy troll.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:16 pm

Nigel Short wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:10 pm
Mr Bridgeman, you say, without the slightest evidence "but I don’t believe for a second David Smerdon is on board with your woman’s brains are different argument." To quote David Smerdon from this Tuesday:

"I'm not sure why anyone denies that there could be biological reasons for the gap. Also not sure why you were vilified so highly".

You also quote, with gushing approval, Gina Rippon's book "The Gendered Brain", as if this is the final word on the subject. It is most certainly not. To quote Simon Baron-Cohen FBA FBPsS FMedSci:

"most biologists and neuroscientists agree that prenatal biology and culture combine to explain average sex differences in the brain". He goes on to say that Rippon "[boxes] herself into an extremist position by arguing that it’s all culture and no biology". Yes that is "extremist" - not mainstream.

The are differences of opinion on this subject. It is possible to discuss this in a civilised manner. You, however, continue to be exceptionally rude and offensive towards me for no reason other than that you clearly enjoy it. You are nothing but a filthy troll.
I'm not a troll, I'm here under my own identity. Please come and speak to me one day face to face at a chess congress. If you have the balls.

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Nigel Short » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:25 pm

I'm not a troll, I'm here under my own identity." A non-sequitur.

"Please come and speak to me one day face to face at a chess congress. If you have the balls."
[/quote]

The troll continues his trolling.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:28 pm

Gerard Killoran wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:34 pm
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.
In fact, the Chairman of the Football Association, Greg Clarke, was forced to resign for using inappropriate language, while supporting positive discrimination.
One of the things he did, lest we forget, was to describe homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice".

A line that was absolutely cringe making, not to mention distinctly bigoted, back in the 1980s.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Matt Bridgeman » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:32 pm

Nigel Short wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:25 pm
I'm not a troll, I'm here under my own identity." A non-sequitur.

"Please come and speak to me one day face to face at a chess congress. If you have the balls."
The troll continues his trolling.
[/quote]

By all means have the last word Nigel, you are the one in the position of power after all. But I am quietly satisfied our little exchange is reflecting a lot worse on you than me.

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

Re: Invisible pieces

Post by Nigel Short » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:41 pm

By all means have the last word Nigel, you are the one in the position of power after all. But I am quietly satisfied our little exchange is reflecting a lot worse on you than me.
[/quote]

A comedian, I see.

Post Reply