I concur with 010001000 ..... and 0011100. lol
Nigel Short: 'Girls just don't have the brains to play chess'
Sort:
Jan 29, 2016
0
#83
I posted this in another trend but I think it applies here too:
Has anybody bothered to read the article that Nigel Short wrote in "New In Chess"?!
He didn't say half the things that people (media) claim he did.
In this video start at 2:53:00 and see what Nigel Short & Garry Kasparov have to say about it.
Jan 29, 2016
0
#84
He still said that men are better than women!
But, after all, he's British, lol....
As some of you may not be aware, chessboards and kitchens are two totally different things. That's why Magnus Carlson is not a stay-at-home mom, or a chef for that matter.
Jan 29, 2016
0
#86
Hill61 wrote:
He still said that men are better than women!
But, after all, he's British, lol....
IIRC he said the best male players are better than the best female players, which is not a matter of opinion, or of being British 
Jan 29, 2016
0
#87
Statistically I know where he's coming from, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
Jan 29, 2016
0
#89
Fiveofswords wrote:
i rarely spend the effort calculate also but i do at least generally see like 2 moves ahead instantly and automatically without even noticing that im doing it. It jsut becomes something the brain does on its own and i guess its related to how its wired somehow. And the fact that i can hunker down and calculate accurately rather deep lines does give me an edge over anyone who cant. like in most games you can choose to play some sharp move to make the position require that if you want to.
If a person struggles to see 10+ moves ahead, I could see how that would sometimes hurt a professional player. I'm still unsure how trainable this is though. I imagine that in the end anyone can do it, but it takes a less gifted player more time and energy. Ok, sure, that's worth rating points over the course of a game... but somehow it's not completely convincing.
And Judit doesn't stand for all female players, but she had a style that required a lot of calculation. When players get older and slower they usually adopt a more positional style. I would somewhat expect female players to do the same if they found they were losing enough games due to struggling to keep up with the calculations. Maybe it would manifest by being behind on the clock often, or running out of energy... I've thought about these things for myself so I have to believe professionals analyze their performance in depth this way too.
Anyway, a lot of assuming, but just thinking out loud here.
Jan 29, 2016
0
#90
Calculation is almost impossible...... when you move one place, and calculate what your opponent would do , then he/she does the exact opposite, then you have to try to recompense for that move you made....neverending story.....
Jan 29, 2016
0
#91
Hill61 wrote:
Calculation is almost impossible...... when you move one place, and calculate what your opponent would do , then he/she does the exact opposite, then you have to try to recompense for that move you made....neverending story.....
When you calculate, what you do is find the opponent move you're most afraid of... or you could call it the most annoying move, the most challenging move, the most contrary move, etc.
Then if they do play something different, you're ok with that.
---
However sometimes there are situations where you give a move a little thought, decide it's 2nd best, and focus your calculations on the most difficult reply... and your opponent plays the move you decided was 2nd best. It's not the best, but it's still challenging, and you have to reassess everything.
If this happens over and over, your position may be good, but you're required to spend a lot of time and effort which can somewhat compensate on the clock!
Jan 29, 2016
0
#92
I admit though in the beginning it's difficult. A newer player can't focus on the most difficult moves. They have to consciously check the obvious moves... like I have 2 defenders and they have two attackers... what if they capture? Is my piece safe?
What if they check me first, then try to capture, am I still safe?
These sorts of safety checks can be tedious... but eventually they become nearly automatic (at least in simple positions) and the conscious mind can focus only on what I call the annoying moves.
Winning at Chess doesn't necessarily mean that you are smarter than anyone else......it's just that you were watching more closely....sometimes, that's all it takes.......
right. i dont think nigel was even suggesting that men are smarter than women. chess is jsut a thing with rather specific skill sets. its highly visual of course and i tihnk its been established as a neurological truth that the visual cortex of men is generally a bit more developed than women. But i dont think anyone meets a person who can say calculate the square root of 20 digit numbers in their head and instantly considers that persons thoughts about anything more valid than their own. heck the person might be some idiot savant and cant take care of themselves. The biggest and most improtant thing is that its jsut not a big deal. thats what people need to establish first before they even start speculating about the differences
I agree.
Except I never know what to make of the visual cortex stuff.
Does your chess strength stem from your ability to calculate and visualize long lines? Or a wide variety of lines?
That's not how I play. I calculate only when I'm forced to... and if things went well that's only once, the end of the game before I win
Of course almost all the time we have to be able to see 1 or 2 moves ahead... but that's 100% trainable for average healthy humans.