Women v. Men
kiran shankar shetty
> I've been wondering this for quite some time: why does chess distinguish
> between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
> much sense. What I mean is this: In physical sports, there is a huge gap
> between the ability of a man to run, say, a half mile, and a woman.
> Theres no point in racing mixed gendered races, because the men will win
> 99% of the imte. But in chess, the only component is mental, where the
> sexes are even. Why should a woman not go and face Kasparov or Karpov and
> be called "world champoin" and not "womens world champion"? Am I missing
> something??
The point you are missing is that men and women are NOT equal as far as mental
faculties are concerned.
Robert Gubbins
Yes they are not equal....women are far superior to men !!!
-edward.m.hummel
>kiran shankar shetty writes:
>|> The point you are missing is that men and women are NOT equal
>|>as far as mental faculties are concerned.
>
>is the case. Without an argument this comes across like plain ol' ignorance.
This is dangerous stuff in this age of political correctness, but people who
insist that there is NO correlation between cognitive ability and gender
are in the unfortunate position of having to prove a negative.
It is quite unlikely scientifically that there is exactly zero difference in
the chess-related cognitive abilities of the sexes. Whether males should be
better than females or vice versa I don't know. Studies to date indicate that
males are stronger, but these studies have significant flaws which make the
conclusions suspect. This absolutely does NOT mean that the correct conclusion
is that there is NO difference between the sexes. There is absolutely no
evidence for that conclusion, although it wins instant approval from the PC
police.
Ed Hummel
Michelle Welcks
In article <3ag6mu$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Lance B Allred <lal...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>I've been wondering this for quite some time: why does chess distinguish
>between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
>much sense. What I mean is this: In physical sports, there is a huge gap
>between the ability of a man to run, say, a half mile, and a woman.
>Theres no point in racing mixed gendered races, because the men will win
>99% of the imte. But in chess, the only component is mental, where the
>sexes are even. Why should a woman not go and face Kasparov or Karpov and
>be called "world champoin" and not "womens world champion"? Am I missing
>something??
You are absolutely correct in your assumption that a separation of women
and men is inherently incorrect. Any suggestions that women are in any
way the intellectual inferiors of men are sexist.
The current practice of "women only" tournaments is clearly outdated.
However, women are suffering from the historical trends which perpetuate
sexists ideas. In the past, women have had little or no opportunities to
participate in activities reserved for solely for men. I know of only a
few instances in which women during the early part of this century were
able to learn anything but the rudiments of chess. Decades ago, women who
learned how to play chess must have been considered quaint at best.
Old habits are hard to break, and it would seems this holds true for the
sport of chess as well. The result is obvious. Women, who have only
recently had the opportunity to participate in this sport, have been slow
to take part. Chess is still seen as an activity for men; I still see
girls who are discouraged when showing anything but a mild interest in the
game.
In spite of these arguments, some may argue that women simply lack the
competitive nature to excel here. This is illogical for at least two
reasons. The first, one need not be competitive to see flaws in an
opponent's position and to act upon this. I wonder how competitive is the
program "Chess Genius 3?" The second argument; Women can be competitive if
they so choose! Again, here we begin to deal with sexist stereotyping.
It is unfortunate that an otherwise intellectual sport could be so
tarnished.
Lance B Allred
between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
much sense. What I mean is this: In physical sports, there is a huge gap
between the ability of a man to run, say, a half mile, and a woman.
Theres no point in racing mixed gendered races, because the men will win
99% of the imte. But in chess, the only component is mental, where the
sexes are even. Why should a woman not go and face Kasparov or Karpov and
be called "world champoin" and not "womens world champion"? Am I missing
something??
Lance Allred
G Thorpe
Bullshit IMHO, but you could have at least given some idea why you think this
is the case. Without an argument this comes across like plain ol' ignorance.
Geoff Thorpe
Paul Orton
distinguish
> between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
> much sense. What I mean is this: In physical sports, there is a huge
gap
> between the ability of a man to run, say, a half mile, and a woman.
> Theres no point in racing mixed gendered races, because the men will
win
> 99% of the imte. But in chess, the only component is mental, where the
> sexes are even. Why should a woman not go and face Kasparov or Karpov
and
> be called "world champoin" and not "womens world champion"? Am I
missing
> something??
No, I'm sure you're right. And in weekend and national tournaments here
in the UK men and women always compete in the same sections. I know
there are not enough women players to form their own sections but I would
doubt very much that even if there were there would be any attempt at
segregation.
The women's world championships have become an anachronism.
>> The point you are missing is that men and women are NOT equal as far
as >> mental faculties are concerned.
Who let in the neanderthal ?
Paul.
Matti Simila
: I've been wondering this for quite some time: why does chess distinguish
: Lance Allred
I agree. The traditional chess world was a world of and for men.
Coffehouses and a lot of smoke in late evenings. Even to-day the number
of female players is but a small fraction of all chess players. Yet,
there are allready many strong female players and many of the strongest
prefer playing in "open" tornaments, that is "male" tournaments. This
goes for Polgar and Cramling at least. Cramling is a member of the
national team of Sweden and thus a representative of the "male" team in
the Olympics.
If women were as active chessplayers as men, and if they took it as
seriously, this probably could lead to a threat to male self
confidence...
At least it seems to me that they are as strong as men, if we take the
number of players into account. And I see no reason why they should not
be, they do better results in school, as we know. There could be
social and cultural factors affecting motivation in the same way as
regards academic performance, where we often find a lot of female
students, but a lower fraction investing in a career as a researcher,
for instance. But I believe that the number of female players will rise
and the average difference between men and women will be reduced.
Matti Simila
G Thorpe
Yeah ..... so what's your point. My opinion was suffixed with a capitalized
IMHO!! You caution me about the age of political correctness (the same cultural
waffle that tried to change "The Lion King" because it wrongly portrayed the
ideals of gender equality --- geesh), yet that was in fact my point. To say
men and women are not equal mentally WITH an argument is still provocative, to
say it without an argument is just arrogant, ignorant and flame bait. It
would not surprise me if this message provokes more hostile responses than
mine.
I am a graduate student in math, and I fully understand your point but the
reason everything is so blurred, is that there is (at present) no satisfactory
measurement that can tell us the difference between male and female abilities
or potentials. Even if there was, where do you draw a level playing field, does
one ignore social issues, does one simply accept that a predominance of boys
are raised with action-man and plastic rambo's, while girls are trained to
play Barbie and brush hair .... or does one try to eliminate such factors
from the conclusions? Your comment that "it is unlikely scientifically that
there is *exactly* zero difference ..." is therefore trivial in two ways.
On the one hand, measurement is difficult and can vary wildly depending on
your sample, on the other hand if I take a blade of grass in each hand there
is "scientifically" ZERO chance they are exactly the same length, does this
mean one hand will ALWAYS have a longer blade of grass than the other?
After all this, I personally couldn't give a stuff ... c'est la vie and all
that. If Judit becomes world champ, it should help settle the issue, but as
long as the women keep improving and more get involved, there is no reason
anyone can claim a male superiority. As for female superiority, it appears
there have already been a couple of posts supporting this, so I'll back
off! :)
Regards,
Geoff Thorpe
Vegard Tollefsen
> Lance B Allred (lal...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
> : I've been wondering this for quite some time: why does chess distinguish
> : between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
> : much sense. What I mean is this: In physical sports, there is a huge gap
> : between the ability of a man to run, say, a half mile, and a woman.
> : Theres no point in racing mixed gendered races, because the men will win
> : 99% of the imte. But in chess, the only component is mental, where the
> : sexes are even. Why should a woman not go and face Kasparov or Karpov and
> : be called "world champoin" and not "womens world champion"? Am I missing
> : something??
>
> : Lance Allred
>
I belive the reason is that so few women have been playing chess. Its logic
that because of beeing lesser in number, ther have not developed woman-
chessplayer who can make themself a name in the world top. Only J.Polgar
has gained shouch a strenght. A title as woman word champion may have been
maded as a favour for women chessplayers. In the future if/when far more
women can play in the world top, this title will loose its meaning.
Vegard.
Michael Niermann
>G Thorpe wrote:
>>kiran shankar shetty writes:
>>|> The point you are missing is that men and women are NOT equal
>>|>as far as mental faculties are concerned.
>>
>>Bullshit IMHO, but you could have at least given some idea why you think this
>>is the case. Without an argument this comes across like plain ol' ignorance.
>This is dangerous stuff in this age of political correctness, but people who
>insist that there is NO correlation between cognitive ability and gender
>are in the unfortunate position of having to prove a negative.
Yes, it's very dangerous, but I want to say the following:
I observed one point which could explain why men play better chess than women.
Many grandmasters and other strong players have the ability to hate the opponent
without any reason. They're able to play a game with an opponent they've never
seen before and after five minutes they think he is an enemy and they must
destroy him. This ability makes them play much stronger.
Before I started to observe this I didn't understand such statements by Fischer
or Kasparov or others, but now I'm convinced they're right.
And this ability is typical male, I never noticed it at a female chess player.
On each level of play you see, that female players are much more peaceful than
male.
I also must say, that I'm happy not to have this ability, but I'm sure that I
would play stronger if I had it. But it's a high price that I don't want to pay.
Michael
edwa...@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
but, if they were eliminated, then 95% of the outraged complaints would surely
come from women. The parallel women's chess movement exists because that
is what women want (unlike, say, the Black baseball movement which folded
instantly when Blacks started getting into the major leagues). Suggestions as
to its elimination (even from women) have the same odour of paternalism ('no no
I know what's best for you') that the suggesters decry in others.
There is a similar skill difference between men and women apparent in the
top levels of contract bridge (even though, in bridge, men and women inhabit
the lower levels in equal numbers). This *seems* to be because chess and
bridge are NOT purely intellectual exercises. Both require hours and hours
of intense concentration and this can't be maintained without considerable
physical effort.
Geoff Edwards
donchess
Championships are open to both men and women. Just as there are Junior
Tournamentsand other specialty events for select groups, there are all women
tournaments. the reasons for t
his are many and varied. Whether it is right or not has been a subject of much
debate.
Don Schultz
Reid Powell
: From article <3ag6mu$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, by lal...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Lance B Allred):
--------
Hogwash. The road to becoming a chess master -- especially a GM --
requires a fierce, uncompromising conviction and dedication that nothing
else in life matters. Furthermore, as GMs like Alekhine and Fischer,
going for broke in competitive chess demands a killer instinct.
Would dearly love to see a winner-take-all match between you and Elena
Donaldson or Judit Polgar, Kiran.
Lisa Powell
Glenn Rhoads
>>
>>Yes they are not equal....women are far superior to men !!!
>>
> men and women is like the difference between animals and plants.
Nonsense. Men and women are of the same species. The differences are
not nearly so dramatic.
> First comes God, then the Angels, then men, then women, then animals,
>then plants.
> You can count the number of female geniuses on one hand!
You can count the number of enslaved geniuses on zero hands. You
simply cannot achieve greatness without having any opportunity to do
so. It is only in recent years that women are starting to get some of
the same opportunities as men; and then only in a minority of
countries.
> <more ignorant nonsense deleted>
Your post achieves a difficult feat; it makes Archie Bunker sound like
an accomplished scholar.
-- Glenn Rhoads
DENNIS MARKUZE
>
>Yes they are not equal....women are far superior to men !!!
>
>
>
>
men and women is like the difference between animals and plants.
then plants.
You can count the number of female geniuses on one hand!
Alright, the Polgar sisters may be geniuses, but they are freaks of
nature! To be a genius by defintion is to be a male (Webster, if you are
reading this, be sure to add this in your next edition). A female genius
is a contradiction of terms. A woman may be intelligent but never a
genius,of course, exceptions do occur, like the baby that is born with
twelve fingers.
P.S. No hate mail from the ladies, please. I'm safe here behind my
computer,you can't scratch out my eyes even if you wanted to.
Dennis Markuze
d_m...@pavo.concordia.ca
Jessica Ambats
>between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
I think that the apparent differences between women and men in chess are
due to the fact that so many more men play than women do...
-Jessica
Maurice Broverman
In a previous article, rho...@pepper.rutgers.edu (Glenn Rhoads) says:
>d_m...@pavo.concordia.ca (DENNIS MARKUZE) writes:
>>>
>>>Yes they are not equal....women are far superior to men !!!
>>>
>>Women are on a lower rung of evolution compared to men, the difference between
>> men and women is like the difference between animals and plants.
>
>Nonsense. Men and women are of the same species. The differences are
>not nearly so dramatic.
>
>
>> First comes God, then the Angels, then men, then women, then animals,
>>then plants.
>> You can count the number of female geniuses on one hand!
>
>You can count the number of enslaved geniuses on zero hands. You
>simply cannot achieve greatness without having any opportunity to do
>so. It is only in recent years that women are starting to get some of
>the same opportunities as men; and then only in a minority of
>countries.
>
>
>> <more ignorant nonsense deleted>
>
>Your post achieves a difficult feat; it makes Archie Bunker sound like
>an accomplished scholar.
>
>-- Glenn Rhoads
>
I suspect the original post was a troll! Otherwise just silly tripe!
Maurice Broverman
Harri Haanp{{
material relevant to chess. If you wish to comment this
article, please consider whether rec.games.chess is the right
newsgroup for your followup. If it isn't, please move the
discussion to another newsgroup or to Email. Thank you.
wel...@bronze.coil.com (Michelle Welcks) writes:
>You are absolutely correct in your assumption that a separation of women
>and men is inherently incorrect. Any suggestions that women are in any
>way the intellectual inferiors of men are sexist.
Why is intellectual prowess such a taboo? If someone casually mentions
that he can bench-press 250lbs, that's far more acceptable than
mentioning an IQ of 170.
It's not really racist to say that blacks tend to be better sprinters
than whites. It's not really racist to say that the best shot putters
tend to be white. But one sure had better not even hint at a
possible difference in the intelligence of the various groups.
There are studies that show that women seem to have better
linguistic skills than men. Others show that men are slightly
better in the logical thinking department. There was one study
that showed that Japanese schoolkids had a higher average IQ
than American schoolkids.
I don't know about the reliability of these studies. Even if they
were correct, the differences between two individuals would
most likely be far more significant than the differences between
the groups. In any case, it doesn't make sense to claim that there
are no differences between the groups only because such
differences would offend somebody's sense of justice.
>However, women are suffering from the historical trends which perpetuate
>sexists ideas.
The fact that grandma couldn't play chess doesn't justify the
preferential treatment of her granddaughter. It is a fact that
few women play chess, and if it's deemed desirable to try to
attract more women to chess, some preferential treatment -
Women Only Tournaments for example - is necessary.
Thus, the way I see it, there are women's tournaments
- not because women would be less suited to playing chess than men
- not because the historical oppression by men should be compensated
- because chess players wish there were more women playing chess.
>to take part. Chess is still seen as an activity for men; I still see
>girls who are discouraged when showing anything but a mild interest in the
>game.
Then again, boys are discouraged when they show interest in
traditionally women's activities. By men and women alike.
>In spite of these arguments, some may argue that women simply lack the
>competitive nature to excel here. This is illogical for at least two
>reasons. The first, one need not be competitive to see flaws in an
>opponent's position and to act upon this. I wonder how competitive is the
>program "Chess Genius 3?"
One needs to be competitive to invest a lot of time and effort
to being able to beat someone. In the case of Chess Genius 3, it
is the programmers who have done that. I shouldn't speak for
people I don't know, but I believe that one of the goals of the
top computer chess teams is to have their program beat the world
champion.
> The second argument; Women can be competitive if
>they so choose! Again, here we begin to deal with sexist stereotyping.
Frankly, I don't believe someone can simply choose to be competitive.
It may well be possible to train competitiveness, and if men are
more competitive it may be because boys are encouraged to be
competitive - or it might be because of a biological reason.
It is rather impossible to tell.
Harri
Meyer A. Billmers
>I've been wondering this for quite some time: why does chess distinguish
>between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
>much sense. What I mean is this: In physical sports, there is a huge gap
>between the ability of a man to run, say, a half mile, and a woman.
>Theres no point in racing mixed gendered races, because the men will win
>99% of the imte. But in chess, the only component is mental, where the
>sexes are even. Why should a woman not go and face Kasparov or Karpov and
>be called "world champoin" and not "womens world champion"? Am I missing
>something??
First, there's not so much evidence that men are naturally superior in
physical sports. Some experts believe that a woman's physiognamy is superior
to a man's in sports such as the marathon, where endurance rather than
strength count. Indeed, the womens marathon record has dropped more in the
past 20 years than the mens record, and they are now only 15 minutes
apart. Yet we have separate prizes for women.
The reason, I think, is a form of handicapping. It doesn't matter why
one gender is less good; as long as it is so, separate competitions
encourage players who strive for prizes or recognition. But an important
point to observe is that once the top of that gender is in serious
competition with men, they will tend to start competing with men. Women
used to be prohibited from running the Boston marathon, and when someday
a woman wins it, I suspect she'll take the men's prize and the BAA will
have to figure out whether it makes sense to have separate prize funds at
all.
Similarly, the Polgars have boycotted womens chess events, and if Judit
becomes strong enough to challenge whoever thinks he is champion, I'm
sure the challenge will occur.
The bigger is question is why we need separate competitions for men ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer A. Billmers Digital Equipment Corporation
bill...@mko.dec.com Multivendor Customer Service
(603) 884-0350 Applied Research Group
SS Quah
>
>Lance B Allred (lal...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: I've been wondering this for quite some time: why does chess distinguish
>: between a women champion and a mens champion. It doesn't seem to make
>: much sense. What I mean is this: In physical sports, there is a huge gap
>: between the ability of a man to run, say, a half mile, and a woman.
>: Theres no point in racing mixed gendered races, because the men will win
>: 99% of the imte. But in chess, the only component is mental, where the
>: sexes are even. Why should a woman not go and face Kasparov or Karpov and
>: be called "world champoin" and not "womens world champion"? Am I missing
>: something??
>
>: Lance Allred
>
>I agree. The traditional chess world was a world of and for men.
>Coffehouses and a lot of smoke in late evenings. Even to-day the number
>of female players is but a small fraction of all chess players. Yet,
I believe this explains everything. What's the ratio of
women to men players in the world today? I think it tips
very much heavily in the favour of the men's. So, if you
have a wide base to choose from, you will definitely have
more good players emerging. In this instance, more top
quality male players than female players in absolute terms.
>there are allready many strong female players and many of the strongest
>prefer playing in "open" tornaments, that is "male" tournaments. This
>goes for Polgar and Cramling at least. Cramling is a member of the
>national team of Sweden and thus a representative of the "male" team in
>the Olympics.
IMHO, Pia Cramling and the Polgars are the exceptions
rather than the norm but FYI too, Mrs Rani Hamid used to
turn out for the Bangladesh men's team in the Chess
Olympiad. I foresee one day, we shall have female players
in the Chinese men's team too.
>
>If women were as active chessplayers as men, and if they took it as
>seriously, this probably could lead to a threat to male self
>confidence...
Threat, in the short term, yes but at the risk of being
labelled a MCP, I believe the male players will quickly
adjust themselves to the invasion.... :)
>
>At least it seems to me that they are as strong as men, if we take the
>number of players into account. And I see no reason why they should not
>be, they do better results in school, as we know. There could be
>social and cultural factors affecting motivation in the same way as
>regards academic performance, where we often find a lot of female
>students, but a lower fraction investing in a career as a researcher,
>for instance. But I believe that the number of female players will rise
>and the average difference between men and women will be reduced.
I hope so, too!
>
>Matti Simila
>
SS Quah
Penang, Malaysia
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>First, there's not so much evidence that men are naturally superior in
>physical sports. Some experts believe that a woman's physiognamy is superior
>to a man's in sports such as the marathon, where endurance rather than
>strength count. Indeed, the womens marathon record has dropped more in the
>past 20 years than the mens record, and they are now only 15 minutes
>apart. Yet we have separate prizes for women.
Women dominate long distance swimming,
in which they are superior to men.
Wlod
Justina Koshinsky
: Wlod
This is not true. Men's times for long distance events in swimming are
superior to women's times.
Justina Koshinsky
(A competetive female swimmer)
(PS Just so this post has something to do with chess, here's a silly mate
I saw once: 1.e4 Nc6 2.Ne2 Ne5 3.c3?? Nd3 mate)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
>: Wlod
I keep your "PS" to keep this post chessical.
With regard to swimming I should say perhaps marathon swimming
(long-long-...-long distance) like the Alcatraz race
in San Francisco, across the Channel La Manche (English Channel),
and some other. I read an article about this topic
some years ago (and till
1991 I lived for almost 6 years in Silicon Valley). Did the
situation change in the meantime?
(I wish I had a lazy access to water, I'd swim no end.)
Ok, back to chess, a kind of. I extended my membership to
USCF, after hesitating, for entire 3 years in the last
moment but before expiration date. Nevertheless the label
on my december issue of CL is completely messed up. The
issue itself came half a month late and looked like a dog
has chewed on it.
Wlod
VIctor Prupis
>
Mr Edwards stole most of my arguments before I even got a chance to followup,
so below there are some random thoughts on a subject. First of all, why do we
need a separate title for a US champion? - let them all compete for a world one.
(Are American GMs inferior?!)
Now, I don't know how much most of the people are involved... but my wife (a
pretty strong IM) seems to enjoy the separation, and she gets wild each time they
are talking the elimination of women chess (BTW, USCF seriously considered
_not_ to send a women US team to the 1994 Olympics).
Also, she claims that there is such a thing as a woman's approach... women tend to
treat the same kind of position differently... more emotionally (I don't understand
what it means, but that's her an IM, not me)... again, it's an opinion of a chessplayer,
not a sociologist.
PS. Paul Keres said once, that men are better chessplayer because
a woman couldn't keep quiet for 5 hours straight.
CHUA YEOW HOOI
: Women are on a lower rung of evolution compared to men, the difference between
: men and women is like the difference between animals and plants.
: First comes God, then the Angels, then men, then women, then animals,
: then plants.
: You can count the number of female geniuses on one hand!
: Which women have contributed to philosophy, painting, music, chess,etc..?
: Alright, the Polgar sisters may be geniuses, but they are freaks of
: nature! To be a genius by defintion is to be a male (Webster, if you are
: reading this, be sure to add this in your next edition). A female genius
: is a contradiction of terms. A woman may be intelligent but never a
: genius,of course, exceptions do occur, like the baby that is born with
: twelve fingers.
Look at the crap this man could write. A very fine demonstration of
profound stupidity and crude arrogance hiding behind the veil of
psuedo-proof. I hope he is not a prime example of the male species.
sic transit gloria mundi,
Leiting
Bookup
Justina Koshinsky <jjk...@arts.usask.ca> wrote:
>Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wl...@blkbox.COM) wrote:
: Women dominate long distance swimming,
: in which they are superior to men.
>This is not true. Men's times for long distance events in swimming are
>superior to women's times.
>
>Justina Koshinsky
>(A competetive female swimmer)
Hey Justina,
Are the differences in times getting smaller? What do you see in
the future?
Just to mention chess, what does that Bob Sasata guy think of
women versus men?
<ducking and running>
FM Chuck Schulien
Chris Kessel
Any attempt to rate intelligence is biased by the method used. The difference,
if any, is likely to be very small and difficult to prove on more than
an individual basis on specific tasks. How are you going to rate intelligence?
By how they play chess? By how they perform calculations? By their
artistic endeavors? By their ability to coordinate with others?
It might be possible to generically claim one sex is better than the other
at chess (to which there will always be exceptions), but it would have no
bearing on an overall measure of ability.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kessel Portland, Oregon
chr...@protocol.com Protocol Systems
For a long time I figured myself a conservative, but at this point
I suspect I'm an actually an anarchist.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kessel
Well, this is *way* off the topic of chess, but a lady friend of mine
explained that distance swimming tends to be simpler for women due to
a higher percentage of body fat. Women can sleek down, but even fit
and trim will have more body fat than men. Body fat floats much better
than muscle giving women an edge in not having to work as hard to stay
above water and thus can concentrate more on strokes and breathing.
Just heresay, but makes sense.
--
imtiazur r syed
> Donaldson or Judit Polgar, Kiran.
Statistics don't work that way Lisa. Fair samples are taken
and analyses are done on those to obtain results which lead to
making conclusions. If Garry Kasparov beats you in a game, it
doesn't lead to a general conclusion that men are superior to
women in chess.
Gallard
I think women have a much greater potential for chess than men do.
Experience and studies have shown that girls do much better in school
than boys do. Which is generally put down to the fact that girls and
women have much longer attention spans.
But chess has been dominated by boys and men for so long due to its
appearancew as an aggressive activity.
Girls are taught not to behave that way and not to make boys look
stupid or they won't like you.
THis has to change if women are ever going to take a more dominant role
in the chess world...
I personally don't know why women put up with the fact of a seperate
title for them. WGM's and Womens champion this or that etc...
I played a against a women class A once...She beat me easily, but she
was so pretty I didn't really mind...Now perhaps this is a sexist
attitude but it is how I felt. I sure didn't mind sitting across from
her for two hours and then spending another fifteen minutes while she
analyzed my game for me...
---
~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Four out of five people think the fifth is an idiot.
Michael Blair Mathers
: men and women is like the difference between animals and plants.
: First comes God, then the Angels, then men, then women, then animals,
: then plants.
Now, I know I'm OBVIOUSLY not the first one to respond to this as there are
a ton of msgs in this thread. However, if you knew ANYTHING about what you
are talking about (evolution) you would KNOW this is not true.. In fact,
if anything perhaps slightly the OPPOSITE. However, I STILL would not say
they are on a different RUNG. C'mon.. The ignorance exhibited makes me
believe you don't truly believe what you're saying.
: You can count the number of female geniuses on one hand!
: Which women have contributed to philosophy, painting, music, chess,etc..?
You mean, which women could have contributed but were not allowed to study
and/or discredited because of their gender.. You are showing your
evolutionary inadequacy here.. You better be careful that Natural Selection
doesn't weed you out..
: nature! To be a genius by defintion is to be a male (Webster, if you are
: reading this, be sure to add this in your next edition). A female genius
: is a contradiction of terms.
Do you have a wife?? I'd have to believe that you do not.. Language is
manufactured by man and therefore subject to the prejudices of man throughout
the years. I think I'll quit now.. and let Natural Selection weed you out.
-Mike
Michael Blair Mathers
: linguistic skills than men. Others show that men are slightly
: better in the logical thinking department. There was one study
I believe there have been more that said the opposite.. That women are
more capable at logic.. (potential)
-Mike
Bookup
Gallard <mela...@prostar.com> wrote:
>I personally don't know why women put up with the fact of a seperate
>title for them. WGM's and Womens champion this or that etc...
This is undoubtedly changing; the clearly best woman player does
not participate in such events, and has no plans ever to do so.
Judit's sister Zsusa *is* playing, and I wonder what she will do
if she beats Chiburdanidze and then Jun Xie? Perhaps she will make some
statement; I think that the time has come to end this institution!
>I played a against a women class A once...She beat me easily, but she
>was so pretty I didn't really mind...Now perhaps this is a sexist
>attitude but it is how I felt. I sure didn't mind sitting across from
>her for two hours and then spending another fifteen minutes while she
>analyzed my game for me...
<grin>
Well, this has nothing to do with competetive chess, I fear.
There are lots of enjoyable ways to spend time with someone attractive;
it's nice to realize that chess is a possibility. I'd suggest that you
pay utmost attention to the game, however...you will learn more from your
attrative opponent that way!
chuck schulien
Michael Blair Mathers
: very careful not to make racist remarks can nevertheless use identical, false
: logic when discussing gender issues.
I don't agree with this political correctness attitude.. not just about chess.
Saying, that the female champions are not up to par yet with the male
champions is simply a true statement. For WHATEVER reason.
: (3) Given (1) above, there is NO evidence to suggest that women COULD NOT be
: as good or better than men at chess. Personally I believe that they could, and
:will gradually become so, but I concede that it is possible that I am mistaken.
Of course not.. Anyone who's just not completely ignorant knows this.. And
those that are.. Well, they'll meet theirs with natural selection...
: (5) The existence of separate tournaments for women is no longer logical, if
: ever it was. Can you imagine a Blacks Only event?
1) Yes I could imagine a Blacks Only event. I would not be in support of it
however.. At my "Affirmative Action" college there are Blacks Only events
every-other-day. Not that I have a problem with it but I certainly can
imagine it.. As to women playing chess in separate tournaments... It WAS
logical, as to now well I'm not qualified to answer as I know little of
strength of the women players. It wasn't for sexist reasons that the
women's event was created rather the opposite. It was to ENCOURAGE women
players by not placing them in an environment where they would be most
certainly trounced. As more and more women play and the stronger they get
the less need there is for a women's event..
:(6) Nevertheless, there is currently a women's world championship and Olypmiad.
: (b) nevertheless, the women's Olympiad gives possibilities for women to gain
: international experience which they would otherwise be denied. In effect
: it can act as a form of positive descrimination, and as such, "women only"
: events should continue to exist, if our aim is to increase the number
: of strong women players.
You draw this "conclusion" from the "observation" that the Women's event was
created for sexist reasons. As far as the pure EXISTENCE of the Women's event
goes, there is no discrimination, positive or negative.. Your own statement
shows that it is not discrimination.. I believe it's ALWAYS been the aim
to increase the number of strong women players, to give them the opportunites
they need to be able to compete, is it not? Besides, I can't see that the
phrase "positive discrimination" makes any sense anyhow...
-Mike
Michelle Welcks
>tournaments was to support women chess players. They wanted more women
>to play chess, not fewer.
>
>So, recognizing that *at that time* women could not play chess at the
>same level as men, FIDE believed that it would be detrimental to chess
>to perpetuate this situation: if there was no chance of a woman
>winning a international or national championship, the fairly low
>participation of women in chess would continue, and so chess as a
>whole would lose.
A few people have now made the statement that, although supporting the
eventual abolishment of women-only events, FIDE had our best interest at
heart when organizing a women's league. And, althought I tend to agree
that women-only tournaments may have provided us with opportunities in
chess, I think is important to qestion FIDE's original intententions.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Likewise, positive
results need not stem from altuistic motives. To make the statement that
FIDE originally had good intentions only because the results or their
actions have been benefical is not logically based. Personally, I have
insufficient background to comment on what FIDE's intentions may have
been. However, I do pose the question to others.
What were FIDE's original intentions?
Why is this important? If the intent was originally based in sexism, then
have their motives changed? Everyone seems to agree that women
tournamnets will eventually disappear. Now I ask, WHEN?
Mark S. Hathaway
> A.J.M...@amtp.cam.ac.uk (A J Mestel) writes:
> Let me make a few observations, which to me seem self-evident.
>
> (1) Given how few women play chess at all, at any level, the number
> who become very strong is not disproportionately small.
>
> (2) The same is true of say blacks. It is a curious fact that people who are
> very careful not to make racist remarks can nevertheless use identical, false
> logic when discussing gender issues.
[snipped some]
> Once, when England lost a match in the Olympiad, which is run
> on a Swiss system, a very strong grandmaster joked to me "you'll be down
> with the blacks and arabs. Or even the women!" (who were in a different
> section). He did not mean it offensively, but....
>
> (5) The existence of separate tournaments for women is no longer logical, if
> ever it was. Can you imagine a Blacks Only event?
[snipped more]
And if a "strong" player loses too much in the U.S.A. Swiss events he/she
may find themselves "down" in the depths of the "class" events. At a large
U.S. event there will usually be several separate tourneys running
concurrently. They may not be women or blacks (or other ethnic groups) in
the "lower" sections, but they are segregated. Is it demeaning to them?
Perhaps we should only have open section tournaments with no sub-classes.
Mark S. Hathaway <hath...@marshall.edu>
Don Fong
>What were FIDE's original intentions?
>
>Why is this important? If the intent was originally based in sexism, then
>have their motives changed? Everyone seems to agree that women
>tournamnets will eventually disappear. Now I ask, WHEN?
what's wrong with this: just give women players the choice. assuming
there are now barriers of some sort to them entering the open ("men's")
competition (or pressures to keep them in the women's section) then the
first step should be to identify and eliminate those barriers. after that,
it's up to the women players themselves. if they don't want women-only
tournaments, they can simply pass them up (as GM Judit Polgar evidently does).
IF women players don't want women-only tournaments, THEN they'll
eventually disappear for lack of participation. ELSE if women players do
want them, i say let em have them.
--- don fong
Michael David Rosen
long time. Someone must be willing to sponsor these events and quite a
few women seem happy to participate in them as well.
What's the problem? If women feel demeaned by these events then they will
disappear from the chess scene. That apparently is not now the case.
If some women chessplayers prefer not to compete in women-only events, because
it improves their play to face stronger competition, then more power to them.
We have tournaments based on age, nationality, state(province), county,
municipality, school, and club. If there is interest from promoters and
participants then why not have the events?
I can't believe that a women's tournament adversely affects the participation
of women in the sport of chess.
mrosen
CAPSA
There is much more than a little discrimination against "blalacks" in chess in
the United States and (even today) in South Africa. If you come to the
Olympiad, I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with you at your
convenience.
Fraternally,
Jerome Bibuld
VIctor Prupis
>
>What were FIDE's original intentions?
Who cares? There may be no FIDE in 1 year... There is a *tradition* already!
> Everyone seems to agree that women
>tournamnets will eventually disappear.
Definitely not.
Yet again, do you believe that "US residents only" invitational is doomed to
disappear? If not, what's wrong with "women only"?
> Now I ask, WHEN?
I hope, never.
>
>
Mark Chess
Prupis) writes:
>Yet again, do you believe that "US residents only" invitational is doomed
to
>disappear? If not, what's wrong with "women only"?
Do you think "men only" tournaments will APPEAR? And if so, do you think
they are perfectly acceptable?
Mark Kislingbury
Houston, Texas
MarkRRand
Mr. Bibuld,
I believe there are a lot of people following this thread who
would love to have you elaborate on your assertion that there is "...much
more than a little discrimination against 'blalacks' in chess in the
United States...". Certainly I would.
And not that this is necessarily contradictory, but if memory
serves, didn't you once state that you had personally experienced very
little racial bias in chess in the U.S.?
Thanks for your time,
Mark Rand
P.S. Just to clarify the intent here, I'm not disputing anything you've
said, and I'm not likely to. I'm just curious what form this
discrimination takes.
CAPSA
Thanks for your interest.
Your memory does not serve in the area of my stating that I "had experience
d very little racial bias in chess in the U. S." At the moment, I am
unprepared to fight a battle over it, but state flatly that U. S. chess is
representative of the entire U. S. society. (A recent illustration is the
fact the FOUR TIMES AS MANY PERSONS OF AFRICAN BIRTH OR RELATIVELY RECENT
AFRICAN DESCENT participated in the March Murphy-ACF International tournament
(Ashley, Rogers, Solomons and Umezinwa) than in the ENTIRE previous history
of U. S. round robin GM norm tournaments combined.) This is a racist society;
chess in the U. S. is a racist activity.
Fraternally,
Jerome Bibuld
P. S.: I state flatly that the only reason the four "non-whites" were
included in the Murphy-ACF is that the principle financial backer was
Afro-American and the organizer is what "editor" Liarry Parr has called
"a loose cannon".
Peter Claus Noehrenberg
IMHO chess is about as egalitarian an endeavor as I can imagine--where achievement
is based almost wholly on ability. At what level, then, would you suggest
discrimination in chess in the U.S. occurs? Do the USCF or local chess clubs deny
memberships to black Americans? Do tournaments refuse entry based on race? Are
pairings biased against minority groups? Is there fraud in the allocation of
rating points?
These questions are obviously rhetorical, for in each instance there is little
opportunity for race to play a role; the USCF or a tournament director do not know
the race of their members/participants, while pairings and ratings are determined
by rigid formulas. It is clear, therefore, that there are no "racial" barriers to
achieving a high rating or winning tournaments, only the results at the board;
in order to *discriminate* there must be *discretion*.
If your issue is with the abuse of discretion so as to discriminate against blacks,
I believe we would all be interested in hearing specific examples of where
chessplayers who are black were denied opportunities given to less qualifies
non-black chessplayers. From your example you suggest that black chessplayers with
high ratings and/or outstanding tournament results are being routinely overlooked
for invitational tournaments; if so, who and when?
Lastly, I take issue with your statements regarding our society and the practice of
chess within. There is no question that there are individuals who are racist in
their beliefs, and specific actions that are racially motivated, but making blanket
statements or sweeping generalities about whole classes of people is just as bigoted
and racist.
PCN
CAPSA
Usually, I do not try to "convince" United Statesians that the U. S. is a
racist society or that the USCF is a racist organization. One of the
reasons is demonstrated by your statement that you do not see the racism.
I don't believe you are blind. I believe you are in racist denial.
Fraternally,
Jerome Bibuld
Calypso
destroy the credibility of those who honestly act in the name of justice
by presenting vague notions or cultural swipes at U.S. citizens.
Seriously. Racism is a problem in many areas of society, but if you are
only shooting the breeze for self-gratification, please don't set up straw
targets and draw attention away from where it is needed. So, prove your
point! Who specifically has been discriminated against on the basis of
race, and specifically how, specifically by whom? These are legitimate
questions!
CAPSA (ca...@igc.apc.org) wrote:
: Dear PCN,
: Fraternally,
: Jerome Bibuld
--
"If you think it's as good as Tolkien, Calypso
You need to read Tolkien again." cal...@clark.net
T. M. Cuffel
>Dear PCN,
>
>Usually, I do not try to "convince" United Statesians that the U. S. is a
>racist society or that the USCF is a racist organization.
Of course not. "convince" would require the use of well reasoned argument,
or what passes for it on Usenet, instead of these hit and run flame bait
cheap shots you are so famous for. I think "proclaim" or "define" or
"delude yourself to believe" are what you want instead of convince.
--
A correct fanatic is no less objectionable than an incorrect one.
- Me
Darrin Bond
Not up to the task of answering the questions posed? Seems to be pretty
typical of you. It really is sad to see you make all sorts of claims
and accusations that you can offer zero support for and puss out when
your pitiful bluff is called. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
If anyone is in a state of racist denial it is you. You are the racist.
In the last seven years (as long as I've been involved in chess) I have
never once seen (or heard of) any player sanctioned in any way because of
his or her race. Quite frankly I think you are sick and in serious need
of counseling. Offer examples to support your outlandish claims or resign
yourself to the fact that you are just a pop-off.
Victim focus identity kills. Just say no!
On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy don't last long. The creative
combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact,
culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite. --Lasker
Darrin L. Bond
M.A. Powe
: IMHO chess is about as egalitarian an endeavor as I can imagine--where achievement
: is based almost wholly on ability. At what level, then, would you suggest
: discrimination in chess in the U.S. occurs? Do the USCF or local chess clubs deny
: memberships to black Americans? Do tournaments refuse entry based on race? Are
: pairings biased against minority groups? Is there fraud in the allocation of
: rating points?
: These questions are obviously rhetorical, for in each instance there is little
: opportunity for race to play a role; the USCF or a tournament director do not know
: the race of their members/participants, while pairings and ratings are determined
: by rigid formulas. It is clear, therefore, that there are no "racial" barriers to
: achieving a high rating or winning tournaments, only the results at the board;
: in order to *discriminate* there must be *discretion*.
The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
club door, not at the tournament hall. I'm sure there are players who
went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
Chess in America is a white man's game.
We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
The Portland Chess Club has one female member; she's in her seventies, her
father was a co-founder of the club in 1911, and her brother, now in his
80s, was a club officer for many decades. There are no black or hispanic
members, and one asian member. The club numbers around 75 members.
: Lastly, I take issue with your statements regarding our society and the practice of
: chess within. There is no question that there are individuals who are racist in
: their beliefs, and specific actions that are racially motivated, but making blanket
: statements or sweeping generalities about whole classes of people is just as bigoted
: and racist.
By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
of race. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of racial
justice one millimeter.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
do...@teleport.com Michael Powe
"What hath night to do with sleep?" --Milton
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
William B. Wright
wrote:
> Peter Claus Noehrenberg (pe...@monty.rand.org) wrote:
> : IMHO chess is about as egalitarian an endeavor as I can imagine--where achievement
> : is based almost wholly on ability. At what level, then, would you suggest
> : discrimination in chess in the U.S. occurs? Do the USCF or local chess clubs deny
> : memberships to black Americans? Do tournaments refuse entry based on race? Are
> : pairings biased against minority groups? Is there fraud in the allocation of
> : rating points?
>
> : These questions are obviously rhetorical, for in each instance there is little
> : opportunity for race to play a role; the USCF or a tournament director do not know
> : the race of their members/participants, while pairings and ratings are determined
> : by rigid formulas. It is clear, therefore, that there are no "racial" barriers to
> : achieving a high rating or winning tournaments, only the results at the board;
> : in order to *discriminate* there must be *discretion*.
>
> The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
> barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
> non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
> club door, not at the tournament hall. I'm sure there are players who
> went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
> are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
> the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
> non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
>
"And if the clubs are unfriendly to non-whites (and women), the result
is obvious."
I agree with you that chess clubs (and tournaments) I have been to are
very white and very male. As someone who is interested in promoting
the game to everyone, what do I need to do to make the atmosphere
more conducive to others? I do not turn away anyone because of race
or gender, they just don't show up. I run tournaments at my local club.
Everyone who is a USCF member and pays their entry is more than
welcome to come. As a for-profit venture, I cannot afford any
exclusionary practices. You have to realize that because white males
are not exposed to the daily discrimination non-whites face, we often
don't realize its there. I am looking for information which will help
overcome these barriers, not rhetoric.
> Chess in America is a white man's game.
>
> We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
> and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
>
> The Portland Chess Club has one female member; she's in her seventies, her
> father was a co-founder of the club in 1911, and her brother, now in his
> 80s, was a club officer for many decades. There are no black or hispanic
> members, and one asian member. The club numbers around 75 members.
>
> : Lastly, I take issue with your statements regarding our society and the practice of
> : chess within. There is no question that there are individuals who are racist in
> : their beliefs, and specific actions that are racially motivated, but making blanket
> : statements or sweeping generalities about whole classes of people is just as bigoted
> : and racist.
>
> By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
> of race. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of racial
> justice one millimeter.
>
> --
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> do...@teleport.com Michael Powe
> "What hath night to do with sleep?" --Milton
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
Pawn grubbing is its own reward!
___________________________
Replies to this e-mail address will bomb.
E-mail replies should be sent to
tob...@bert.lerc.nasa.gov
Mark J Ioli
M.A. Powe <do...@teleport.com> wrote:
>The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
>barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
>non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
>club door, not at the tournament hall. I'm sure there are players who
>went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
>are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
>the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
>non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
Oh, here we go again. Anyone who doesn't agree is in denial. I don't
know what your experiences have been, but it seems that you proceed
from the assumption that you're going to find predjudice wherever you
look. With this kind of mentality, no one really has much of a chance,
do they?
>Chess in America is a white man's game.
Come off it. Chess is there for anyone who want's to play.
>We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
>and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
Well, if the numbers aren't proportional, there must be some
discrimination going on. The fact is that the doors are open,
membership is open to whomever wants it.
>By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
>of race. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of racial
>justice one millimeter.
This hypocrytical, self-rightious crap is typical. As if blacks,
hispanics, or any other minority are somehow different. Your comments
are proof that you too judge people based on race, i.e. all whites are
racists. Yeah, your spouting off really helps race relations, by using
the same types of ignorant generalizations you're supposedly so
indignant about. Maybe once people like you get over your delusion
that racism and predjudice are a white phenomenon, some real
progress can be made.
Mark Ioli
University of Pittsburgh
Philip L. Peterson
: By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
: justice one millimeter.
Tsk tsk, Michael. Did the majority of "white Americans" write to you and
tell you how they think?
I will admit the the government tries to encourage people in their
practices to closly examine skin color, but some of us are able to resist
government brain washing, and to look beyond color and judge people on
their ability and personality, and ignore minor points like shade of skin
color.
M.A. Powe
: In article <3bd6rt$i...@elaine.teleport.com>,
: M.A. Powe <do...@teleport.com> wrote:
: >The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
: >barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
: >non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
: >club door, not at the tournament hall. I'm sure there are players who
: >went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
: >are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
: >the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
: >non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
: Oh, here we go again. Anyone who doesn't agree is in denial. I don't
: know what your experiences have been, but it seems that you proceed
: from the assumption that you're going to find predjudice wherever you
: look. With this kind of mentality, no one really has much of a chance,
: do they?
And you proceed from the assumption that there is no prejudice, because
it makes you feel comfortable. What a guy. The fact is, I proceed from
experience, a valuable teacher for one, when the blinders are off. Of
course, I hear the things you don't hear, like the fellow club member, a
former teacher, who explained to me over a game one day that he retired
after they "let all those blacks" into his school; or the guy at the
restaurant last week, who commented after the black waiter departed that
everyone should check to see if they still had their watches; or the
constant refrain at work, "f*ckin mexicans why don't you all go back to
Mexico?" Sometimes I wish they would -- just so I could get a big guffaw
at the spectacle of pampered middle class Americans trying to do for
themselves. I'm sick to death of racist America; but I'm even more sick
of "see no evil, hear no evil" apologists declaring "ah, it's really not
that bad."
: >Chess in America is a white man's game.
: Come off it. Chess is there for anyone who want's to play.
Chess is "there" for anyone who has the opportunity to play. White
men.
: >We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
: >and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
: Well, if the numbers aren't proportional, there must be some
: discrimination going on. The fact is that the doors are open,
: membership is open to whomever wants it.
Duh, you just don't want to get it, do you? Of course, you would also
claim that anyone could be elected President, regardless of color or
gender, too. Your "fact" is an assumption, based on your refusal to
admit that prejudice plays any role in how prospective members are
treated. You're home free -- you assume what is to be proved, and
therefore your tautological argument allows you to maintain your blind
complacency.
: >By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
: >of race. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of racial
: >justice one millimeter.
: This hypocrytical, self-rightious crap is typical. As if blacks,
: hispanics, or any other minority are somehow different. Your comments
Qualitatively different -- they are not running the country nor the chess
clubs. Quantitatively different -- they are in the minority.
: are proof that you too judge people based on race, i.e. all whites are
: racists. Yeah, your spouting off really helps race relations, by using
: the same types of ignorant generalizations you're supposedly so
: indignant about. Maybe once people like you get over your delusion
: that racism and predjudice are a white phenomenon, some real
: progress can be made.
Considering that I have made no statement regarding racism among
minorities, you would perhaps do well to inform the rest of the group how
you "divined" that I was deluded in this matter. In fact, inform me, I'm
quite curious about your magical powers in this regard. Considering that
I live in a predominantly black neighborhood, and that the majority of my
co-workers are green-card hispanics, and that I frequent minority-owned
and operated businesses, and that I have worked as an ESL tutor with Asian
and hispanic immigrants, it may even be possible that I know one hell of a
lot more about race relations than you do. Well, you keep on substituting
your assumptions for facts; and 99.44% of the time, the opponent sitting
across the chess board from you will be a white man. It hasn't bothered
you up to now -- don't make yourself uncomfortable by asking questions.
As for your last statement, since you have already discounted repeatedly
that racism is a problem, I "divine" that you are not interested in
"progress," for such progress would imply that there was indeed a problem.
Chris Kessel
[article on racism in chess deleted]
And what do you propose be done? Chess clubs are open, tournaments are open.
Chess hardly costs money to get into (heaven knows I haven't spent any money
on it aside from a $5 chess board). It's entirely possible some people in
the clubs are unhappy with minority chess players, but that doesn't
prevent minorities from joining. It does, granted, make a person feel intimidated,
but that problem isn't going to go away by wishful thinking. Some people are
going to have to brave that discomfort to work through any biases.
You certainly don't need a club anyway. I've played most of my life with friends,
people I've taught, etc. Most towns of any size have social areas where you
can drop in and play. Many colleges have informal chess clubs that don't require
you even attend the college.
You propose that there is racism in chess. There isn't anything I've seen
inherent in the game to discourage minorities. Some chess playing members
may be racists, but that's a separate issue. It is more than easy to play
chess anywhere, anytime. There are no financial barriers or physical barriers
preventing anyone from playing. Access is not restricted except by a person's
own timidness about exposing themselves a new group of people.
So, given access seems to be available. Is there a physical barrier I missed?
If so, what do you propose be done?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kessel Portland, Oregon
chr...@protocol.com Protocol Systems
For a long time I figured myself a conservative, but at this point
I suspect I'm an actually an anarchist.
------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A. Powe
: In article <3bd6rt$i...@elaine.teleport.com>, do...@teleport.com (M.A. Powe)
: wrote:
: "And if the clubs are unfriendly to non-whites (and women), the result
: is obvious."
: I agree with you that chess clubs (and tournaments) I have been to are
: very white and very male. As someone who is interested in promoting
: the game to everyone, what do I need to do to make the atmosphere
: more conducive to others? I do not turn away anyone because of race
: or gender, they just don't show up. I run tournaments at my local club.
: Everyone who is a USCF member and pays their entry is more than
: welcome to come. As a for-profit venture, I cannot afford any
: exclusionary practices. You have to realize that because white males
: are not exposed to the daily discrimination non-whites face, we often
: don't realize its there. I am looking for information which will help
: overcome these barriers, not rhetoric.
You know, I tried an experiment a few years back, with surprising
results. I offered a "beginning chess" class through the Adult Ed
section of the local community college. Unfortunately, I didn't get
enough enrollment to have the course permanently added to the schedule.
But, all the enrollees...were women. Two of them subsequently joined the
club for a time, but frankly, the atmosphere there is anything but
conducive to women members. It's a men's club, plain and simple. If you
have such an opportunity available in your area, you might try something
similar.
Second, I think you have to get into the schools. Schools don't buy
equipment for clubs; they don't provide instruction and training as part
of club activities. In your ordinary white middle class school district,
starting up a club is a relatively simple matter, because parents and/or
sugar daddies are going to provide the necessary equipment, etc. Who does
this in the poor (and nonwhite) districts? Just this past year, a chess
league was formed among the public schools here, which includes many of
the schools with mostly black and hispanic children. This league was only
formed because it's part of a research study on the effects of learning
chess on academic achievement. But it's a finger in the right direction.
You have to get the kids started on the game before the adults are going
to come to the club. And how 'bout a little motivation? The Mighty Pawns
is available on video -- get hold of it and show it, to all the kids if
possible.
Finally, I would say, the hardest part is, determining just how your
fellow club members are reacting to new non-white and female members.
You are right, a black man is going to be much more sensitive to the
nuances of racial behavior than you would ordinarily be. But if some
member is behaving in an untoward manner, however subtle, then you have
to spot it and counteract it. Except for outright racial or sexual
remarks, you can't make a bigot stop being one; but you can provide the
friendliness and welcome (and not just you, individually, but along
with other members of the club) that will negate the dampening effect of
the unfriendly person. Contrary to the TV and newspaper images of blacks
as a bunch of shiftless whiners, most blacks grow up accustomed to racial
slights. They are a fact of life. They don't run off boo-hooing every
time one happens, and they don't put up their dukes every time, either.
All that's necessary is that they feel more welcomed than suspected.
They can handle the occasional idiot.
And let's face it, when people are confronted with something new, they
get nervous. They're not sure how to react. New members who don't "fit
the mold" are noticeable. Hell, I spend 90% of my time among minorities,
and I'm unnerved when I go visit my sister in her lily-white suburb --
nothing but white faces, everywhere! They all look the same! <g>
I dunno, maybe that helps. I really think that getting the youngsters
involved in the game is the key. The chess club here has a lot of
members who started coming to the club when they were in 8th or 9th
grade, and five or six or ten years later, they're still coming in.
David Hanley
: The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
: barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
: non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
: club door, not at the tournament hall.
While I'm sure this has happened, I would posit that this is
not the entirety of the problem. Both chess clubs I've been involved
with had black members, and no one ever seemed to have a problem.
: Chess in America is a white man's game.
: We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
: and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
What, exactly, is your point? What does this prove?
: By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
: of race. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of racial
: justice one millimeter.
Where is your proof of this? Have you considered that perhaps
you are just projecting your racial hatred on others? That perhaps
you are not part of the answer, but part of the problem?
: --
: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
: do...@teleport.com Michael Powe
: "What hath night to do with sleep?" --Milton
: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| David James Hanley -- dha...@lac.eecs.uic.edu -- C++, OOD, martial arts |
| Laboratory for advanced computing | My employer barely KNOWS me. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All these moments will be lost. Like tears in rain. Time to die.
-Roy Batty "Blade runner"
Chris Call
I am dismayed by the racism and bias demonstrated by many of the contributors
to this thread. I'm probably falling for their trolling by responding, but
it's hard to keep silent and not challenge the prejudice being put forward here.
I do not doubt that there is racism and prejudice in the US, and that it is
directed against African-Americans as well as Native Americans, Asians,
WASPs, and others. But the conclusion that racism and prejudice has prevented
black people from competing at the chess board has been offered without any
supporting evidence, and accusations have been made without basis.
Jerome Bibuld wrote:
|> >Usually, I do not try to "convince" United Statesians that the U. S. is a
|> >racist society or that the USCF is a racist organization. One of the
|> >reasons is demonstrated by your statement that you do not see the racism.
|> >I don't believe you are blind. I believe you are in racist denial.
And then do...@teleport.com (M.A. Powe) wrote:
By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
of race.
I'm afraid that Messrs. Bibuld and Powe are trying to fight (what they
perceive as) racism with more racism.
What is racist is the assertion, in the absence of fact, that most or all
of the members of a particular racial group share some quality or trait.
Saying that most white Americans are racists is itself a racist statement;
who makes such a statement demonstrates a prejudice against white Americans.
do...@teleport.com (M.A. Powe) also wrote:
The prejudice that prevents
non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
club door, not at the tournament hall.
And if the clubs are unfriendly to
non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
Even if we accept the hypothesis that most clubs have a disporportionate number
of white male members, it is a foolish leap of illogic to conclude that the
cause of that disproportionality must be some form of prejudice.
If someone were to claim that the cause was that white males are the only ones
who are intelligent enough, disciplined enough, cultured enough, or not too
busy killing each other out on the streets to be good chess players, he or she would be guilty of the same error in reasoning. Why should we believe Powe's
equally erroneous conclusion, given without a shred of supporting evidence?
This whole thread so far has consisted of nothing but unproductive name-calling. If nobody is prepared to support the propositions they put forward with fact and logic,then I suggest we all keep our opinions to ourself and accept that we cannot agree.
--
-- Chris
(R.C.Call rcc...@babel.ho.att.com, r.c....@att.com 908 946 1133)
Randell Jesup
>The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
>barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
>non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
>club door, not at the tournament hall. I'm sure there are players who
>went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
>are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
>the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
>non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
>
>Chess in America is a white man's game.
Huh? Perhaps it is where you are; I wouldn't know. It certainly
isn't here (an affluent suburb of Philadelphia).
>We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
>and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
The West Chester Chess Club (just celebrated 20 years) is not only
30% or more african-american, at least among the regulars, but those members
are often or have been officers, and one of them is one of our prime
organizers (and one of the higher-rated players). One was president, and
now runs a club in a nearby town. One ran the newsletter for years, and was
just given a lifetime membership for his contributions to the club. Their
ratings range from perrenial lowest to one of the highest in the club. The
percentage of african-americans is probably well above that of the county as
a whole. We have a few female members; we wish we had more. One of them
helped found the club I understand. If anyone has come up with a good solution
to getting women and girls interested in chess, I'm sure we'd all like to hear
it.
When I go to the "big" tournaments in Philly, a lot of the players,
both in the hall and in the skittles room, are "minorities".
>The Portland Chess Club has one female member; she's in her seventies, her
>father was a co-founder of the club in 1911, and her brother, now in his
>80s, was a club officer for many decades. There are no black or hispanic
>members, and one asian member. The club numbers around 75 members.
Either it's in a town or part of town that is pretty segregated,
or I'd say the club should make an outreach to other parts of the community.
That certainly has little or no correlation with my experience with clubs
or tournaments.
Regarding the initial questions M.A. Powe thought were "irrelevant": as
usual, Jerome when questioned for facts, details, or any other supporting
evidence fell back on his normal "I don't want to talk about it, and you're
all racist United Statesians anyways" response. He prefers accusations to
to discussion. A more cynical person might think that he was more interested
in crying persecution than in enlisting help to change things which may
be wrong, both in the USCF/clubs and society. If he could actually identify
something I agreed was racist, I would fight hard to get it changed. But
general accusations and then refusal to specify don't cut it with me. Sorry.
--
Randell Jesup, Scala US R&D
Randel...@scala.com
Ex-Commodore-Amiga Engineer, class of '94
#include <std/disclaimer>
T. M. Cuffel
>The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
>barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial.
And anyone not falling for the imperalist lies of capitalism knows
that Marxism is the One True economic system.
Kind of a vacuous argument, isn't it?
>The prejudice that prevents
>non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
>club door, not at the tournament hall.
Actually, it is probably earlier than that. Children are more likely to
learn games that are part of their cultural tradition. Modern chess,
for the past few centuries, has been a largely European game. It should
not be suprising that it is most popular among those of European descent.
>I'm sure there are players who
>went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
>are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
>the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
>non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
>
>Chess in America is a white man's game.
Even if this is true, it is not clear where the fault lies. If a man
shuns a career as a nurse because it is a "woman's job", does the
prejudice lie in him or the "unfriendly" nursing profession?
>We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
>and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
Disparity is not conclusive evidence of discrimination. You don't see
many white rap singers, nor a lot of black country music stars. Why?
Because music, like game playing, often has a cultural component. There
is not necessarily anything bad or racist about this, it is just the way
things worked out. Chess, steeped in a largely European tradiation,
naturally has a greater appeal in European cultures, just as Go has
a greater tradition and appeal in the Orient. This is to in no way
imply that anyone should be excluding from a gaming community for
reasons of race, only that we should not be terribly suprised by
racial disparity.
>The Portland Chess Club has one female member; she's in her seventies, her
>father was a co-founder of the club in 1911, and her brother, now in his
>80s, was a club officer for many decades. There are no black or hispanic
>members, and one asian member. The club numbers around 75 members.
And is there anything inherently wrong with this? The American northwest
isn't exactly known for its minority population, so this might be largely
a matter of demographics. Be suppose it isn't...so what? To me it seems
kinda prejudice to assume that just become some race or gender doesn't
like chess as much as another, there has to be some big problem.
>By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of race.
Judging people by their race. How horrible.
dwy...@delphi.com
this world, happens to be primarily a sport for White men for a
number of perfectly understandable, yet unfortunate reasons.
First of all, most people learned chess from their parents.
That includes not only how the pieces move, but basic opening
moves and even general tactics in some cases. This "passing
down" of knowledge makes it somewhat intraracial, not
interracial. The African-Americans who learned to play chess
often will not have had this parental influence to draw from.
In addition to that, as has already been posted in this thread,
Chess is more popular in predominantly "white" cultures such as
eastern Europe and the former Soviet States than it is in our
more culturally diverse nation.
As to the "male" preference of the sport, a number of
researchers and authors have hypothesized that the extremely
competitive and "fight"-oriented nature of chess is much more
suited to the traditional male's competitive nature than to a
female's somewhat less aggresive nature. Is that the case in
all cases? Certainly not. Most cases? Debatable point. But
at least it has some sort of logic.
Unfortunately, many things that in this country are dismissed
as racist or prejudicial are simply a matter of exposure and/or
understanding. Chess is not exactly the most well-publicized
or well-respected sport in the free world. I hardly think 5 out
of 10 average Americans of any race would be able to name 2 out
of the top 5 Chess players in the world, whereas most could
name the winner of last year's Super Bowl or the World Series
winner of 1993. Many minorities are simply not aware of the
many wonderful opportunities available in chess or even the fun
(and challenge) of competitive chess.
Mark A Zabel
on work noone else is willing to, stroke sagging egos of the players,
and get suggestions from every chess player in his or her community
as to how it *should* be done can run a chess club!
-Regards, Mark
Bill Huffman
>In article <3bd6rt$i...@elaine.teleport.com>,
>M.A. Powe <do...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
>>barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
>>non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
>
... stuff deleted ....
Unfortunately, I believe there may be too much truth in the above statement.
Let me relate one sad example I saw. It was the first night of a new
tournament at the club. Most of the games were just finishing up. A young
lady, who I'd never seen before, just resigned her game. She asked the fellow
she was playing if he would like to go over the game to give her some advice.
He said "The only advice I can give you is to leave and not come back
until you can play well enough to not embarass yourself. You are a worthless
chess player." She never came back.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that he would have said that if she had been
a male.
>>By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
>>of race. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of racial
>>justice one millimeter.
I believe and hope that the above is an over statement. I disagree that
ONLY white Americans judge other people on the basis of race. I hope that
the majority of white Americans consider other factors far more important.
misleading about it is that
Paul A. Lane
>: >The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
>: >barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
>: >non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
>: >club door, not at the tournament hall. I'm sure there are players who
>: >went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
>: >are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
>: >the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
>: >non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
I believe you've attacked other posters for poor assumptions and you
just made a whopper. As a matter of fact, I did go directly to a tourney
and then started club play. As the local club focused on quick play,
I preferred short (G/30, G/60) tourneys.
How did it happen? A friend of mine was playing and invited me. A
winter storm cut off a trip I'd planned, so I went and enjoyed it.
Now, why don't you go prove your prior statement.
>And you proceed from the assumption that there is no prejudice, because
>it makes you feel comfortable. What a guy. The fact is, I proceed from
>experience, a valuable teacher for one, when the blinders are off.
No. He proceeds from the fact that prejudice of some members does
not preclude entry. Unlike the presidential analogy you use later,
prejudice does serve as a barrier.
>Of course, I hear the things you don't hear, like the fellow club
member, a former teacher, who explained to me over a game one day that
he retired after they "let all those blacks" into his school; or the guy
at the restaurant last week, who commented after the black waiter
departed that everyone should check to see if they still had their
watches; or the constant refrain at work, "f*ckin mexicans why don't you
all go back to Mexico?" Sometimes I wish they would -- just so I could
get a big guffaw at the spectacle of pampered middle class Americans
trying to do for themselves. I'm sick to death of racist America; but
I'm even more sick of "see no evil, hear no evil" apologists declaring
"ah, it's really not that bad."
I have yet to hear a single racist comment in three years of tourney
play. This includes major tournaments and many small ones.
>Chess is "there" for anyone who has the opportunity to play. White
>men.
Bullshit. I look around and see quite a number of nonwhites.
The depressing factor is the dearth of woment.
>You're home free -- you assume what is to be proved, and
>therefore your tautological argument allows you to maintain your blind
>complacency.
You don't know much about rhetorical argument, do you? He is requesting
you prove your blanket statements. Instead of citing anything
persuasive, you attack him.
[most whites aren't racist]
>Qualitatively different -- they are not running the country nor the chess
>clubs. Quantitatively different -- they are in the minority.
Outright untrue. Unproven. You have now directly attacked a man
who has put a lot into helping kids of all races into the game,
Roger Gotschall. He does run the local chess club and is one of the most
active TD's in the country. And I have seen him treat children of
all races equally.
>As for your last statement, since you have already discounted repeatedly
>that racism is a problem, I "divine" that you are not interested in
>"progress," for such progress would imply that there was indeed a problem.
No, he has not. He has said that racial attitudes pose no barrier
to entry into chess clubs. He did not say that there is not a problem
with racism in this country.
You might also want to look in the mirror. Evidently, you hold white,
middle class Americans in very low regard. Evidently, we're incapable
of taking care of ourselves. I find your attitudes as offensive as
any bigot.
Paul
--
Paul A. Lane
pal...@iastate.edu
Kirk Gunsallus
"
... stuff deleted ....
Unfortunately, I believe there may be too much truth in the above statement.
Let me relate one sad example I saw. It was the first night of a new
tournament at the club. Most of the games were just finishing up. A young
lady, who I'd never seen before, just resigned her game. She asked the fellow
she was playing if he would like to go over the game to give her some advice.
He said "The only advice I can give you is to leave and not come back
until you can play well enough to not embarass yourself. You are a worthless
chess player." She never came back.
Somehow I find it hard to believe that he would have said that if she had been
a male.
"
This is deplorable. If I had been in charge or attendence when this happened
the offending person would have been asked to leave himself, and not return.
Regardless of the sex issue, that type of rudeness should never be tolerated..
if I attended a club and saw this happen and it was allowed to go unchallenged,
I would not have returned. I do not wish to be in a "club" with such
people
K
Noam Elkies
of women in chess *composition* (the construction of problems
and studies). The only case I know of chess composition by
a woman is a study by Judit Polgar in Benko's column a couple
of years ago. Are there any others? (I've only met a few
dozen composers in person, and all have been male, but there
might even be well-known composers I haven't met who happen
to be female.) Practically all serious composition tournaments
are conducted anonymously, so judges' bias against women
composers could not be an issue. One would readily invoke
cultural pressures, but composition is already a very small
subculture of the chess community which (at least in the USA)
is generally ignored the community at large, and the subculture
itself would surely welcome any promising newcomer whether
man, woman or child to augment its numbers...
--Noam D. Elkies (elk...@zariski.harvard.edu)
Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Paul A. Lane
Mr. Powe puts up a terrific post about exactly what he's
done to help chess amongst those who are poorly represented.
While I disagree with him on many of his views, I do
recognize there is still a great deal of racism in
the U.S. And I applaud him for his positive atttempts
at erasing that in the chess community.
Ron_Ko...@transarc.com
One of the things that has always impressed me about the US chess community
is the diversity of the members. You can walk into a chess club and find
people of all races, the very young and the very old, profoundly handicapped
individuals, the very rich and the very poor, Americans and citizens from all
around the world, spectacularly well-educated people and illiterate
people, "normally" socialized people and near-totally dysfunctional people.
And you find that pure chess talent is distributed across all of these
groups! The only under-represented group I can think of are women.
I really cannot think of another social setting in America that involves
individuals from so many walks of life that come together as equals.
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
KG> Unfortunately, I believe there may be too much truth in the above
KG> statement. Let me relate one sad example I saw. It was the first
KG> night of a new tournament at the club. Most of the games were just
KG> finishing up. A young lady, who I'd never seen before, just
KG> resigned her game. She asked the fellow she was playing if he would
KG> like to go over the game to give her some advice. He said "The only
KG> advice I can give you is to leave and not come back until you can
KG> play well enough to not embarass yourself. You are a worthless
KG> chess player." She never came back.
KG> Somehow I find it hard to believe that he would have said that if
KG> she had been a male.
Oh, cut the crap.
The only thing this proves is that this idiot had never had a date in
his life.
Israel.S...@moondog.com
---
* RM 1.3 02344 *
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
CC> P. S.: I state flatly that the only reason the four "non-whites"
CC> were included in the Murphy-ACF is that the principle financial
CC> backer was Afro-American and the organizer is what "editor" Liarry
CC> Parr has called "a loose cannon".
Principal.
John Brogan
:Dear Mr. Rand,
:
:Thanks for your interest.
:
:Your memory does not serve in the area of my stating that I "had experience
:d very little racial bias in chess in the U. S." At the moment, I am
:unprepared to fight a battle over it, but state flatly that U. S. chess is
:representative of the entire U. S. society. (A recent illustration is the
:fact the FOUR TIMES AS MANY PERSONS OF AFRICAN BIRTH OR RELATIVELY RECENT
:AFRICAN DESCENT participated in the March Murphy-ACF International
tournament
:(Ashley, Rogers, Solomons and Umezinwa) than in the ENTIRE previous history
:of U. S. round robin GM norm tournaments combined.) This is a racist
society;
:chess in the U. S. is a racist activity.
Those are some pretty strong statements, Jerome. Given the "evidence"
you present, it's not surprising you're "unprepared to fight a battle over
it." When you speak of "the ENTIRE previous history of U.S. round robin
GM norm tournaments," you should also mention that there's only been a
handful. American GMs go overseas to get their titles for just that reason.
Also, of the four names you mentioned, only Maurice Ashley can
reasonably be considered a candidate for the GM title. The others are
USCF 2300. When they raise their games to Ashley's level, they will get
the same chance to gain titles as anyone else in this country who plays
that well---namely, slightly better than zero.
The most disgusting thing about all this is that you personally are
aware of all these facts, but still you get on here and post this tripe.
It's that warm, fuzzy, self-righteous feeling you get when you accuse
others of racism (or sexism, or whatever the subject at hand offers).
It's like a drug, isn't it, Jerome? You can't resist it. You're
addicted to that feeling, and if someone ever manages to demonstrate
to you that there might be some aspect of society that is not racist,
not sexist, and generally fair to everyone, your reaction is, "No, no,
no, it can't be fair," and you just shut down. You continue to insist
that everything and everybody is racist and sexist because that's where
that warm, fuzzy feeling comes from, but you refuse to discuss it. It's
called denial, and you're smack dab dead in the middle of it.
:Fraternally,
:
:Jerome Bibuld
:
:P. S.: I state flatly that the only reason the four "non-whites" were
:included in the Murphy-ACF is that the principle financial backer was
:Afro-American and the organizer is what "editor" Liarry Parr has called
:"a loose cannon".
---
John Brogan
Philip L. Peterson
: ... stuff deleted ....
: Let me relate one sad example I saw. It was the first night of a new
: lady, who I'd never seen before, just resigned her game. She asked the fellow
: she was playing if he would like to go over the game to give her some advice.
: He said "The only advice I can give you is to leave and not come back
: until you can play well enough to not embarass yourself. You are a worthless
: chess player." She never came back.
: Somehow I find it hard to believe that he would have said that if she had been
: a male.
I don't know, if he is that much of a jerk, maybe he would have.
Pity she didn't know some karate.
Don Fong
>We have a few female members; we wish we had more. One of them
>helped found the club I understand. If anyone has come up with a good solution
>to getting women and girls interested in chess, I'm sure we'd all like to hear
>it.
--- don fong
Karadepau
say (or at least some are) that chess is a white mans game, that blacks are
discouraged from playing. Oh, excuse me. I meant European Americans and
African Americans. OR even better European United Statesians or whatever the
hell that nonsense is. One thing I can say. I have seen examples of race
problems at the Pittsburgh chess club where I usually play. There have been
iprobleMrs in the past with members objecting to a transvestite who
frequents the club. Now this got really ugly from what I saw, and what I
heard. But the fact remains that she /he still plays there. People as a
whole at enough courage and character to encourage her/him to play.
Another example is of an African American (must be politically correct) who
frequentts the club. It turns out that he is homeless, and constantly begs and
tries to borrow money from people which he never repays. I don't want to
get into any issues surrounding that. What I do want to say is that people
try and work with him, even though sentiment about him ahas been getting worse.
Even after they caught him stealing money from the club, they still gave him
another chance, and he is still playing at the club. People have paid his
entry fees to tournaments, bought him food, given him rides home, given him
money. Where then is this all encompassing racism against the black man?
I am not trying to say racism doesn't exist. I personally feel that blacks are
just as if not more racist toward whites, and believe me I have experienced it.
Racism is NOT an AMERICAN phenomenon. It is older than civilization itself,
and you are deluding yourself if you ever think it will disappear. If its not
race, its religion, or sex or whatever. All I can say is deal with it.
Sometimes its worse than others, but the fact is there are a lot of people
out there who try to look past these things and its not easy sometimes.
Please don't make those shitty type of statements that don't tdo anything
but insult and harden those people out there who aren't like that. Believe
me, I am cynical enough as it is without having to listen to your crap.
Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth, and I'm sure i'll regret saying it but what
the hell.
Karadepau
dwe...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
tob...@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright) writes:
>In article <3bd6rt$i...@elaine.teleport.com>, do...@teleport.com (M.A. Powe)
>wrote:
>
>very white and very male. As someone who is interested in promoting
>the game to everyone, what do I need to do to make the atmosphere
>more conducive to others? I do not turn away anyone because of race
>or gender, they just don't show up. I run tournaments at my local club.
>Everyone who is a USCF member and pays their entry is more than
>welcome to come. As a for-profit venture, I cannot afford any
>exclusionary practices. You have to realize that because white males
>are not exposed to the daily discrimination non-whites face, we often
>don't realize its there. I am looking for information which will help
>overcome these barriers, not rhetoric.
>
this one is obvious, bill....
hold a theme tournament where the black pieces get to move first
to make up for the previous centuries where they had to move after
the white pieces.
>--
>Pawn grubbing is its own reward!
>___________________________
>Replies to this e-mail address will bomb.
>E-mail replies should be sent to
>tob...@bert.lerc.nasa.gov
don wedding
Dr A. N. Walker
(A J Mestel) writes:
>(1) Given how few women play chess at all, at any level, the number
>who become very strong is not disproportionately small.
I agree with the sentiment, but the statement is not, in my
experience, quite true. Consider:
(a) Pop in to any junior club. Up to age 10, or thereabouts, the
sexes are quite well balanced. The girls are there in strength, in both
senses. *Most* children then give up, and that's where the disproportion
really sets in; the few who survive are very predominantly male.
(b) Ask members of the general public whether they play chess; I
guess that surprisingly many women will say "yes", at least if you accept
"knowing the moves" as opposed to "playing regularly in clubs". If you
ask the *parents* of the children in (a), the mothers will as often as the
fathers say something like "well, I used to play a little, and I taught
Johnny the moves, but I'm too busy to play now".
(c) I give a final-year optional module here on Game Theory. *All*
of our students claim to "know how to play chess". Yet, whereas around
half of our male students attend my module, fewer than a quarter of the
female students do. This is a maths department, so the females have
already battled through whatever prejudices there may have been at school;
but even so they systematically avoid games. [They also systematically
avoid computing, but that's another story.]
In other words, if we replace "chess at all, at any level" in
the Mestel claim by "club or tournament chess, at any level", then I
think the claim is true. The problem remains to explain why girls give
up chess preferentially, and why, even given the opportunity, they are
less interested in later life.
In a separate thread, in <3blnhh$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu
(Don Fong)
> get married, have children, and teach your daughters the game.
Been there, done that. But it doesn't solve (a) and (c) above.
--
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Anthony
mental development... I think it is a male-centric strategy to maintain a sense
of male superiority... trying to maintain the status quo... only my opinion...
Anthony
you are still involved in Chess.. best wishes...Anthony.
Anthony
Majority classified as "White".. or am I "Non-white"?? or maybe I am a person of
color?? Any way i have found that the few chess clubs that I have been to have
not discriminated against me. I was allowed to join and I was paired based on my
USCF rating. Did I feel comfortable being surrounded by the "Majority"?? did I
appreciate the lady who I passed clutching at the handbag or being openly stared
at?.. it is suprising that when you stare back the person in question tends to
be some what suprised and usually blushes.. Any way like many things in this
country people of color have to appreciate that "only ourselves can free our
minds" Even though we may not feel "comfortable" we have the right to be
treated fairly.. if we are not being treated asis our right, then it is for us
to insist
on our rights... Officially I do not think that there is "racism" in the USCF
At clubs membership differ, you have to take them one at a time. In the end
your abilities over the board will give you equality of a sort...
Norbert Geissler
Can you give position, stipulation (win, draw, ...), place and date of
publication, please ?
I think there are some women composing chess-problems, especially in Russia.
I remember that there exists a book written in Russian language which
shows chess compositions by women.
Having literature not at hand:
Some well-known names:
Mrs. W.J. Baird GBR
- One of the first famous female composers !
Odette Vollenweider SWZ
- she composed under the pseudonym of Gabriel Baumgartner
when things were not so open for women in the middle of our century..
There exist a lot of famous compositions by her !
Regine Stroblers GER
- Not so well-known. Composed only from 1984 to 1989 (I think).
Not very successful in composing, composed only miniature problems.
But these tiny compositions can nevertheless be interesting...
Norbert
--
Norbert Geissler, SNI BA OS 3, Otto-Hahn-Ring 6, D-81730 Muenchen, Germany
EMAIL: norbert....@mch.sni.de VOICE: +49 (89) 636-48132
...for chess, that superb, cold, infinitely satisfying anodyne to life, I feel
the ardour of a lover, the humility of a disciple. (Herbert Russel Wakefield)
GILBAR...@delphi.com
> subculture of the chess community which (at least in the USA)
> is generally ignored the community at large, and the subculture
> itself would surely welcome any promising newcomer whether
> man, woman or child to augment its numbers...
> Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Gilbert Baron Bailar es vivir W0MN
pgp2.6 key upon request
Rainbow V 1.08 for Delphi - Test Drive
Draftsy
M{>{mji...@pitt.edu}
M{>In article <3bd6rt$i...@elaine.teleport.com>,
M{>M.A. Powe <do...@teleport.com> wrote:
M{>>The questions are not only rhetorical, but irrelevant. The racial
M{>>barriers are obvious to anyone not in denial. The prejudice that prevents
M{>>non-white players from entering the tournament field begins at the chess
M{>>club door, not at the tournament hall. I'm sure there are players who
M{>>went straight from their living rooms to the tournament halls, but they
M{>>are few and far between. For most players, it is the club that serves as
M{>>the introductory to the tournament. And if the clubs are unfriendly to
M{>>non-whites (and women), the result is obvious.
M{>Oh, here we go again. Anyone who doesn't agree is in denial. I don't
M{>know what your experiences have been, but it seems that you proceed
M{>from the assumption that you're going to find predjudice wherever you
M{>look. With this kind of mentality, no one really has much of a chance,
M{>do they?
M{>>Chess in America is a white man's game.
M{>Come off it. Chess is there for anyone who want's to play.
M{>>We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
M{>>and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
M{>Well, if the numbers aren't proportional, there must be some
M{>discrimination going on. The fact is that the doors are open,
M{>membership is open to whomever wants it.
M{>>By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
M{>>of race. Pretending otherwise does not advance the cause of racial
M{>>justice one millimeter.
M{>This hypocrytical, self-rightious crap is typical. As if blacks,
M{>hispanics, or any other minority are somehow different. Your comments
M{>are proof that you too judge people based on race, i.e. all whites are
M{>racists. Yeah, your spouting off really helps race relations, by using
M{>the same types of ignorant generalizations you're supposedly so
M{>indignant about. Maybe once people like you get over your delusion
M{>that racism and predjudice are a white phenomenon, some real
M{>progress can be made.
M{>Mark Ioli
M{>University of Pittsburgh
Sure there are black racists, but the point is thaat whites control the
levers of power, economic, political, and social, tto a far greater
extent than blacks; hence the racism of whites (who also greatly out
number blacks) has a far greater impact on the lives of blacks than vice
versa.
Bruce Moreland
>
> [deleted]
>
> By far, the majority of white Americans judge other people on the basis
I have the feeling I've just been judged on the basis of race! If I had
written "By far, the majority of black Americans judge other people on the
basis of race" (an opinion I don't have, by the way), I would have been
blasted for racism. Why is this any different?
bruce
Anders Thulin
>Possibly even more mysterious is the nearly complete absence
>of women in chess *composition* (the construction of problems
>and studies). The only case I know of chess composition by
>a woman is a study by Judit Polgar in Benko's column a couple
>of years ago. Are there any others?
A few come to mind ...
Mrs. Baird, who wrote "The 20th Century Retractor". (early 20th
century)
Odette Wollenvieder (sp?) who used a pseudonym I can't remember
offhand (Gabriel something?), is another.
Harriet Worral - I'm not sure, but I think I've seen a problem or two
by her. But she can hardly be more than an occasional composer. (19th
century).
And there are of course a number of pseudonymous composers, like
"Evaas", purportedly the companion of the equally pseudonymous
"Adamas". But of course sex is difficult to establish in such cases.
Especially since Adamas claims/claimed to know nothing about Evaas.
There is also a book about female composers - I remember seeing a
notice about it some time ago, probably in _Springaren_. I think it
was written by a Russian female composer.
--
Anders Thulin a...@linkoping.trab.se 013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Gallard
ID>In Article <tobill-28...@careine.lerc.nasa.gov>
ID>tob...@mac.lerc.nasa.gov (William B. Wright) writes:
ID>>In article <3bd6rt$i...@elaine.teleport.com>, do...@teleport.com (M.A. Powe)
ID>>wrote:
ID>>
ID>>I agree with you that chess clubs (and tournaments) I have been to are
ID>>very white and very male. As someone who is interested in promoting
ID>>the game to everyone, what do I need to do to make the atmosphere
ID>>more conducive to others? I do not turn away anyone because of race
ID>>or gender, they just don't show up. I run tournaments at my local club.
ID>>Everyone who is a USCF member and pays their entry is more than
ID>>welcome to come. As a for-profit venture, I cannot afford any
ID>>exclusionary practices. You have to realize that because white males
ID>>are not exposed to the daily discrimination non-whites face, we often
ID>>don't realize its there. I am looking for information which will help
ID>>overcome these barriers, not rhetoric.
ID>>
ID>this one is obvious, bill....
ID>hold a theme tournament where the black pieces get to move first
ID>to make up for the previous centuries where they had to move after
ID>the white pieces.
ID>don wedding
Well Don this does not seem obvious to me...
Consider that chess was invented and evolved in the far east, not in
white Europe. So the argument that the black pieces move second has some
sort of racial equivelant is to me absurd.
I highly doubt that black people do not play chess because the black
peices move second. In the west you don't see many non-whites playing
because they are not exposed to the game as children...And because there
are no or few non-white chess role models to emulate. I do not believe
that there is any sort of racist movement to keep minorities out of
chess any more than there is a racist movement to keep whites out of
basketball.
---
~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission.
dwe...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
JOKE: n. 1) Something said to cause laughter, esp. a brief story with
---- a punch line. 2) A mischievous trick 3) A ridiculous statement
or situation 4) An object of amusement 5) 1.g4
syn. GAG, JAPE, JEST, QUIP, WITTICISM, GROB
take care,
don wedding
Thomas Maeder
>In article <3birga$7...@decaxp.harvard.edu> elk...@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>>Possibly even more mysterious is the nearly complete absence
>>of women in chess *composition* (the construction of problems
>>and studies). The only case I know of chess composition by
>>a woman is a study by Judit Polgar in Benko's column a couple
>>of years ago. Are there any others?
>
>A few come to mind ...
>
>Mrs. Baird, who wrote "The 20th Century Retractor". (early 20th
>century)
Her daughter Lilian also composed some problems.
>
>Odette Wollenvieder (sp?) who used a pseudonym I can't remember
>offhand (Gabriel something?), is another.
Odette Vollenweider problably is the best personally known female composer,
because she used to be the Swiss delegate at the Permanent Commission of the
FIDE for Chess Composition. She runs excellent tournaments in the Neue Zuercher
Zeitung. Her pseudonym from the early 60's to the late 70's was Gabriel
Baumgartner.
>
>Harriet Worral - I'm not sure, but I think I've seen a problem or two
>by her. But she can hardly be more than an occasional composer. (19th
>century).
>
>There is also a book about female composers - I remember seeing a
>notice about it some time ago, probably in _Springaren_. I think it
>was written by a Russian female composer.
"Queens of chess composition" (my translation) by Zuleikha Ivasova. She
mentions other female composers, e.g.:
Nadeshda Leontieva who doubtlessly is the most successful female composer.
Gertraud Ebert (wife of minimanner expert Hilmar Ebert).
Not mentioned in the book (too young) is Croatian Vesna Gavrilovska who won
the latest British Chess Problem Society Under 21 Tournament (about five years
ago).
Thomas
Bernd Schwarzkopf
>From: a...@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
>Subject: Re: Women in chess composition?
>Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 11:41:51 GMT
>A few come to mind ...
[...]
>Odette Wollenvieder (sp?) who used a pseudonym I can't remember
>offhand (Gabriel something?), is another.
Odette Vollenweider / Gabriel Baumgartner
[...]
>And there are of course a number of pseudonymous composers, like
>"Evaas", purportedly the companion of the equally pseudonymous
>"Adamas". But of course sex is difficult to establish in such cases.
>Especially since Adamas claims/claimed to know nothing about Evaas.
Adamas is realy a man (J.M. from Denmark)
>There is also a book about female composers - I remember seeing a
>notice about it some time ago, probably in _Springaren_. I think it
>was written by a Russian female composer.
Author: Sulejka Ejwasowa
Title: Korolewi schachmatmoj komposizij (Baku, 1986)
Thies is a wrong transliteration of the kyrilic letters, I hope you can
understand. The title means something like "Queens of Chess Komposition".
Bernd Schwarzkopf.
cpiz...@nwu.edu
>
>>Regine Stroblers GER
> - Not so well-known. Composed only from 1984 to 1989 (I think).
> Not very successful in composing, composed only miniature problems.
> But these tiny compositions can nevertheless be interesting...
>--
>Norbert Geissler,
Regine Stroblers seems to be an anagram of Norbert Geissler.
What a coincidence!
Stefanos Pantazis
cpiz...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
Michael Oates
> : know what your experiences have been, but it seems that you proceed
> : from the assumption that you're going to find predjudice wherever you
> : look. With this kind of mentality, no one really has much of a chance,
> : do they?
>
> And you proceed from the assumption that there is no prejudice, because
> it makes you feel comfortable. What a guy.
Where are you getting this from? I've read and reread the above statement
and nowhere do I see him assming that there is no prejudice. If anything,
the statement, 'with this kind...much of a chance', he admits that there is
prejudice, and that you aren't doing much to help.
> The fact is, I proceed from
> experience, a valuable teacher for one, when the blinders are off. Of
> course, I hear the things you don't hear, like the fellow club member, a
> former teacher, who explained to me over a game one day that he retired
> after they "let all those blacks" into his school; or the guy at the
> restaurant last week, who commented after the black waiter departed that
> everyone should check to see if they still had their watches; or the
> constant refrain at work, "f*ckin mexicans why don't you all go back to
> Mexico?" Sometimes I wish they would -- just so I could get a big guffaw
> at the spectacle of pampered middle class Americans trying to do for
> themselves. I'm sick to death of racist America; but I'm even more sick
> of "see no evil, hear no evil" apologists declaring "ah, it's really not
> that bad."
I suppose one should ask, what is worse--pretending there is nothing wrong
or going about it in such a way as to propogate the problem? When the
teacher made his comment about, 'all those blacks', what did you say? Did
you point out that ALL people--white, black, male, female--have the right
to an education? Did you say something to the guy in the restaurant about
his comment? I'm guessing probably not. And that, my friend, is one of the
biggest problems humanity faces. You say you are 'sick to death of racist
America', but what do you do about it, besides complain?
> Chess is "there" for anyone who has the opportunity to play. White
> men.
I live in Canada, not America, but I don't think the situation could be that
different. I ask you why only white men have the opportunity to play? Do
people that are black, hispanic, asian (or any other type of person)
NOT have the opportunity? Can these people not go to a tournament site,
pay a registration fee, and sit down to play chess?
> : >We can take a little survey here. How many chess clubs have non-white
> : >and/or female members, and what are the numbers?
Actually, in this case, I would say the numbers are probably somewhat
proportional to the population from which the club draws its members. If
the city the club is in is predominately white, it would make sense (from
a statistical point of view) that there would be more whites in the club.
The club I belong to has people that are white, black, Indian, Chinese, Korean,
Vietnamese, Mexican, male and female people--more people are white, yes,
but that is because the city (from which the club draws its membership) has
more people that are white.
> : This hypocrytical, self-rightious crap is typical. As if blacks,
> : hispanics, or any other minority are somehow different. Your comments
>
> Qualitatively different -- they are not running the country nor the chess
> clubs. Quantitatively different -- they are in the minority.
Your definition of 'qualitatively' needs some work--qualitatively, people that
are black (or female, or Mexican, or whatever) are no different than people that
are white (or male, or Chinese, or whatever)--we all have the same basic body
structure, mental capacity, etc. So, qualitatively, we are all similar.
Quantitatively, yes, people that are black are a minority. However, I seem to
recall reading that in New York City, people that are black are actually a
majority (or close to it). In any case, in most cities, the split is becoming
smaller and smaller, so that statement is rapidly losing validity.
> Considering that I have made no statement regarding racism among
> minorities, you would perhaps do well to inform the rest of the group how
> you "divined" that I was deluded in this matter. In fact, inform me, I'm
> quite curious about your magical powers in this regard. Considering that
> I live in a predominantly black neighborhood, and that the majority of my
> co-workers are green-card hispanics, and that I frequent minority-owned
> and operated businesses, and that I have worked as an ESL tutor with Asian
> and hispanic immigrants, it may even be possible that I know one hell of a
> lot more about race relations than you do. Well, you keep on substituting
> your assumptions for facts; and 99.44% of the time, the opponent sitting
> across the chess board from you will be a white man. It hasn't bothered
> you up to now -- don't make yourself uncomfortable by asking questions.
>
> As for your last statement, since you have already discounted repeatedly
> that racism is a problem, I "divine" that you are not interested in
> "progress," for such progress would imply that there was indeed a problem.
> : >Chess in America is a white man's game.
Yet, you say you have made no statement that is racist. If the above statement
is not racist, what is? It could very well be transposed into something like
'Crime in America is a black man's game' or 'Illegal aliens in America are
Hispanics'. Yes, I would certainly say your statement is racist. I admire that
you have worked as an ESL tutor, etc., but why stop there? Racism is not just
a situation, it is a state of mind. You say 'the majority of my co-workers are
green-card hispanic'--instead, why not say, 'the majority of my co-workers are
people'. Whether those people are black, white, hispanic, male or female,
should make no difference. And this has nothing to do with being 'politically
correct'--like I said, it's a state of mind. If you see a person who is black,
you can say 'that person is black' or you can say 'that is a black person' or
you can say 'that is a person'. Do you see the difference? It's subtle, but
it is there. The way we think is what causes racism. When we can change that,
we'll be making progress.
---
* NFX v1.3 [000] SNAFU.
---
* NFX v1.3 [000] SNAFU.
A J Mestel
problems used were composed by women.
Jonathan
Stefanos
This is completely false, as Jonathan should know since he
participated in "the last international chess problem solving
championship" (18th WCSC, Belfort France, 1994), where in fact he
did extremely well, coming in third place (after A. Zude & M.
Caillaud). NONE of the problems used in Belfort were composed by
women.
What he is imperfectly recalling is the previous WCSC,
directed by Bo Lindgren, which included 7 (out of a total of 18)
problems from Zuleikha Eivazova's book. The use of non-original
problems proved controversial. Bo's explanation was--quoting from
The Problemist, vii/93--that using these problems "was a safe bet
... although the book is quite well-known, the standard of problems
in it are [sic!] not high" and therefore likely to be unknown to
most problemists.
Stefanos
with apologies for breaking the internet policy against accurate
information!
A J Mestel
>>
>>In the last international chess problem solving championship, ALL the
>>problems used were composed by women.
>> Jonathan
>
> This is completely false, as Jonathan should know since he
>participated in "the last international chess problem solving
>championship" (18th WCSC, Belfort France, 1994), where in fact he
>did extremely well, coming in third place (after A. Zude & M.
>Caillaud). NONE of the problems used in Belfort were composed by
>women.
> What he is imperfectly recalling is the previous WCSC,
Well well. Yes, actually I can still recall the events of 4 months ago. I
used the word ``last" to mean "the one before the current one", i.e. last
year's rather than this year's. Apologies if I misled anyone.
Incidentally, I did not regard my result as "extremely good," as I failed once
more to get my solving grandmaster title...
Jonathan
Deanhoward
I was directing a one-round-per-week tournament at the Syracuse Chess Club
in the early 70's. A black man, who was playing in the tournament, arrived
with two black friends after the start of the second round. One of them
wanted to play a tournament game. Naturally, the only chance to
accommodate him was to ask the player who was scheduled to have a bye.
That player did not want to start a late game, so I had to tell the
late-arriving player he would have to wait until the following week. Only
when his other friend said, "He'll play a white guy" did I realize that,
by a truly unfortunate coincidence, the only available player was the only
other black in a room of almost 40 people.
I thought it was funny at the time, and of course both players had
interracial pairings in the following weeks, but now I wonder if the event
may have made
them feel a little less welcome at the club.
I have been playing tournament chess for over 20 years, and have never
seen any overt racism at a tournament or club, and can hardly remember any
cases of individuals who were racist enough to be noticed. I now live in
the Oakland/San Francisco area, where the black, Hispanic, and Asian
populations are all large enough that no open tournaments will have a
lily-white atmosphere. Has anyone out there, especially in the Bay Area,
experienced or witnessed behavior that might drive someone away?
If you want to respond to me personally, please reply by e-mail as well as
by posting. I don't sign on to this group very often.
Thomas Maeder
> What he is imperfectly recalling is the previous WCSC,
>directed by Bo Lindgren, which included 7 (out of a total of 18)
>problems from Zuleikha Eivazova's book. The use of non-original
>problems proved controversial. Bo's explanation was--quoting from
>The Problemist, vii/93--that using these problems "was a safe bet
>most problemists.
I think Bo was right: I own the book and competed in Bratislava without
remembering one of the problems, not even the one by Odette Vollenweider
(Swiss like me). I sure would have recognized it if the position hadn't
been mirrored; like this, it took me longer to solve it than the other two
problems of that round, and I almost gave a wrong key...
But there are some very good problems in the book. See Chess Problem No 15.
Thomas
Thomas Maeder
>Incidentally, I did not regard my result as "extremely good," as I failed once
>more to get my solving grandmaster title...
It was extremely good enough to leave many rounds (not the more-movers, though)
quite early and frustrate the competitors sitting near you, e.g. me.