Invisible pieces

[Gerard Killoran]

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]

How do we know it is a woman?

I have it on good authority that this article was written by Nigel Short.

[Nigel Short]

"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]

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]

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.

[John Moore]

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.

[JustinHorton]

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.

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.

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.

[Nigel Short]

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.

[Gerard Killoran]

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.

[JustinHorton]

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.

[Matt Bridgeman]

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]

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.

[Matt Mackenzie]

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.

[Matt Bridgeman]

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]

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.