Jennifer Shahade - the real life Beth Harmon

https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/2376082/im-the-real-life-queens-gambit/

"I'm the real life Queen's Gambit and proof chess is not a man's game."

no

Intriguing story, just one more proof- underestimate a female at your peril

I found it interesting, so I posted the link.

Yes, beware we redheads! ;^)

i wonder if magnus ever is beware of a woman.

Thanks for the link. I got to see Jenny's belly button!

He has never met me!  I am old enough to be his mother, and could paddle his fanny (American, not British, fanny)

Poor guy lol

Hahaha! "British fanny" is considered as very rude! lol

Very nice, but the title is silly. I bet she didn't said that.

Excellent article Jamie, thanks.

I'm sure she didn't. 

And sorry for this. But remember Gufeld's immortal words: "my English is better than your Russian!"

There have been quite a few real life Beth Harmon recently...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karineldor/2020/12/07/the-real-queens-gambit-how-elsa-majimbo-is-winning-over-a-global-audience-one-move-at-a-time/

https://www.insider.com/real-life-beth-harmon-shares-grow-up-playing-chess-influencer-2020-12

I wonder what she means when she says that chess is not a man's game. If she means that less than 100% of, say, chess players at her level, are men, then that is of course correct, but presumably she means something at least a little more nuanced than that. Perhaps she is making a more social/societal point, and is saying that chess isn't inherently a manly or girly thing to do, but if that's the case, then it would seem strange that a lot of women still complain about the feeling that the game is a "boy's club," assuming that the meaning of that term is sufficiently similar to that of "man's game."

If Jen's existence is clear proof that the game is not a boy's club, then women should recognize that truth and feel perfectly natural to be a woman playing chess, perhaps playing in a club (assuming people behave of course) -- yes, most chess players they will see in clubs are men, but Jen Shahade exists, so they are not in a man's world It seems like on one hand a lot of people will in one breath say that chess is not a man's game, but then complain that chess is a man's game and that this is holding women back.

Maybe there are additional distinct meanings to this that I didn't think of, but these kinds of phrases are kind of vague and confusing as it's hard to say what about the game of chess is really being referred to with it, and thus, what we are supposed to take away from it -- we can be happy for her personally, but I am assuming she wants us to take more from it than that; I just don't particularly know what that is.

Since when did Feminism ever make sense? Welcome to the 21st century, where women will claim men and women are the same mentally and physically, yet cry domestic abuse when men hit them back

The first 3 words of the article are "GRANDMASTER Jennifer Shahade"

Her FIDE is 2300.

That's all I have to say about that.

I had seen a magazine article that made basically the same mistake, I think it was about a WGM but they said she was a GM. It's just funny because for me personally, encountering this twice is a surprising experience for me. Sure, the titles can get confusing if you are not familiar with chess, but these kinds of mistakes are what I expect to happen when I am explaining this to people I know... not to the "professionals" who write articles to be seen by thousands of people. It's not  really that hard or that much to ask to verify these kinds of things when you are getting paid for us to hear your words, so they should be words that are better than what you can generally expect from just some random stranger you encounter.

But given how much society strives for female empowerment, I imagine the people writing these articles just disregard any research into the specifics of chess titles as just quibbling, "eh, who cares, the point is, this makes her look good, and Woman Grandmaster still involves the word 'grandmaster,' so close enough! Especially when we are being so supportive of this woman!" (That is, not that they necessarily intentionally made the mistake, but their attitude made them too lazy/unmotivated to do the necessary research to avoid the mistake.) It's almost like they are not worried about making an error, as long as the error is that they were too generous to the woman and not of course the other way around. But that just sounds really sloppy and unprofessional to me -- even if them being generous to women makes them feel virtuous, the journalists are here to be professional, not to virtue signal.

Again, I could plausibly see in casual conversation, "oh stop quibbling, she's a great chess player, who cares what exact title it is!" I just am concerned that this mentality makes it all the way up to professional article level. That when the topic concerns some progressive cause, accuracy is secondary, and then people who then challenge the inaccuracy are sometimes considered offensive rather than just making something that would be considered a standard critique of professionalism in any other context. I mean, the difference between 2300 FIDE and 2500 FIDE is kind of huge in that it probably takes thousands of hours of study to go from 2300 to 2500. Once you are at master level, it takes a ton of work to move up from there and separate yourself from the pack -- at that level 100 points is huge and 200 points, much more so.