wait, we're missing something....
Micky was like "theres a reason why the two of them monopolized the world championship"... so bad. I really thought the reason was that they were Best!? I mean how do you game the candidates/interzonal system??
knowing of course- that worlds elite are pretty close in strength. but still kasporov was clocking people left and right- and karpov was the sitting world champion, no?
I LOVE a good conspiracy theory.
Here's a couple of excerpts from the recent chessbase article Women in chess: role of innate ability beliefs
The variation in the size of the gender gap can be explained relatively easily: women might be reluctant to enter or continue in fields where they believe they don’t have what it takes.
The experimenters made up a story about a new science major being introduced at a university. If the study participants were told that this major required brilliance, then significantly fewer women were motivated to pursue it, whereas if they were told that it required hard work and dedication, there was no gender gap. This strongly suggests that there is a causal link between beliefs about brilliance being required and low female participation.
Read the full article here:
en.chessbase.com/post/women-in-chess-role-of-innate-ability-beliefs
I must add that those beliefs are actually substantial.
Judit has beaten Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov on occasion, therefor it would seem that she would have beaten anybody before Anatoly Karpov.
But what I do know is that Judit Polgar is arguably the best female chess player, ever and on a good day can beat anyone.
I'm a big Judit Polgar fan and she has indeed at least some wins against basically everyone of the big names of her time and many past champions.
Kasparov is the only partial exeption to this iirc: while she did have won games against him, none of those were under classic time controls.
And of course, there was that touch-move "controversy" in one of their games that she would have had a winning position in if Kasparov hadn't broken the rules there.
Fron her wikipedia page: "Polgár is the only woman to have won a game from a reigning world number one player, and has defeated eleven current or former world champions in either rapid or classical chess: Magnus Carlsen, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov."
It's only a matter of time.
Thanks. That was both interesting and educational.
The thing is, the beliefs are in fact substantial.
But yes, Judit was a prodigy & maybe with better training she might have been world champion. She's amazing.
I don't think it's a lack of training, but rather Judit never seemed to quite have that absolute dedication needed to become world champion. She's said it herself that being world champion wasn't the most important thing for her.
well the next president of US will be a woman, so I don't see why woman cannot be world champion in chess.
Dear lord, I hope not.
Here's a couple of excerpts from the recent chessbase article Women in chess: role of innate ability beliefs
The variation in the size of the gender gap can be explained relatively easily: women might be reluctant to enter or continue in fields where they believe they don’t have what it takes.
The experimenters made up a story about a new science major being introduced at a university. If the study participants were told that this major required brilliance, then significantly fewer women were motivated to pursue it, whereas if they were told that it required hard work and dedication, there was no gender gap. This strongly suggests that there is a causal link between beliefs about brilliance being required and low female participation.
Read the full article here:
en.chessbase.com/post/women-in-chess-role-of-innate-ability-beliefs
I must add that those beliefs are actually substantial.
Very interesting post. Research also shows that the use of words like 'brilliant' or 'genius' are applied by students much more to male professors than female ones (when writing feedback forms), irrespective of actual ability. It stands to reason then that if women never hear themselves described as brilliant they wouldn't really believe it about themselves.
There is another point to add to this which is that there is evidence that women are socialised from a young age to believe that success or failure is determined by innate ability whereas boys are socialised to believe that it is dependent on hard work and effort. So in school boys learn that if they didn't do well on a test it was because they didn't work hard enough. Girls on the other hand learn to believe that it was because they weren't clever enough. Consequently boys feel that they have much more agency and control over outcomes and will work hard to achieve their goals whereas girls become more passive.
In answer to lebid's nonsense above: in case he didn't notice it, Nazism and Communism are both deplorable totalitarian social systems. And any man who judges by the group rather than weighing each individual on his own merits . . . is a PEAWIT.
Group mentality is for weak suck ups and losers. Communism has a very broad meaning and cannot be equated with socialism; socialism is nonsense invoking things like, "you'll own nothing and be happy" as well as collectivist ownership where individual thought never matters and nobody is allowed to possess anything, how can one be free if nobody is allowed to own anything?
Socialism is terrible for that reason, it believes in collectivist thought and judgement as opposed to individual autonomy and choice, the Nazi party was a socialist movement, as they were called the Socialist Nazi Party, for those who have forgotten.
Communism can mean two things, it can be a reference to the communist block in Russia, the USSR, the Soviet Union and the Baltic Region, or it can refer to Maoism in China, Maoism is terrible and is only an excuse to exercise total control under a dictatorship.
The communist block on the other hand is somewhat tolerable as long as it remains in Russia and Eastern Europe, while the Iron Curtain in Russia has been abused terribly throughout the years, that doesn't mean that Russia style communism is inherently awful, as in itself it actually works within the USSR, I don't agree with anybody who tries to bring Communism to the UK and USA, however, as I do not believe communism is suited to a country like the UK and the USA, I despise anybody who tries to inflict communism on a country like the UK and the USA, I also am very disappointed with anybody who tries to inflict capitalism on the USSR as well, capitalism isn't suited to the USSR.
I don't like capitalism nor communism, the only reason I believe they are in place is because no other workable solution has been put in place to replace them, the monsters who invented both capitalism and communism are long gone and now we are stuck with both while being unable to come up with an adequate replacement for both.
Judit has beaten Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov on occasion, therefor it would seem that she would have beaten anybody before Anatoly Karpov.
I'm not suggesting that she would have won a long and gruelling match against anybody before Karpov ...but she would at least one game against anybody.
Heck, she might have blown Steinitz out the water, or crushed Lasker.
Who knows.
But what I do know is that Judit Polgar is arguably the best female chess player, ever and on a good day can beat anyone.
She would pummel Steinitz, although I doubt she would be able to take down Lasker. Lasker could prove to be a match for any world champion today.
Judit has beaten Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov on occasion, therefor it would seem that she would have beaten anybody before Anatoly Karpov.
I'm not suggesting that she would have won a long and gruelling match against anybody before Karpov ...but she would at least one game against anybody.
Heck, she might have blown Steinitz out the water, or crushed Lasker.
Who knows.
But what I do know is that Judit Polgar is arguably the best female chess player, ever and on a good day can beat anyone.
She would have pummelled Steinitz, although I doubt she would be able to take down Lasker. Lasker could prove to be a match for any world champion today.
Here's a couple of excerpts from the recent chessbase article Women in chess: role of innate ability beliefs
The variation in the size of the gender gap can be explained relatively easily: women might be reluctant to enter or continue in fields where they believe they don’t have what it takes.
The experimenters made up a story about a new science major being introduced at a university. If the study participants were told that this major required brilliance, then significantly fewer women were motivated to pursue it, whereas if they were told that it required hard work and dedication, there was no gender gap. This strongly suggests that there is a causal link between beliefs about brilliance being required and low female participation.
Read the full article here:
en.chessbase.com/post/women-in-chess-role-of-innate-ability-beliefs
I must add that those beliefs are actually substantial.
Very interesting post. Research also shows that the use of words like 'brilliant' or 'genius' are applied by students much more to male professors than female ones (when writing feedback forms), irrespective of actual ability. It stands to reason then that if women never hear themselves described as brilliant they wouldn't really believe it about themselves.
There is another point to add to this which is that there is evidence that women are socialised from a young age to believe that success or failure is determined by innate ability whereas boys are socialised to believe that it is dependent on hard work and effort. So in school boys learn that if they didn't do well on a test it was because they didn't work hard enough. Girls on the other hand learn to believe that it was because they weren't clever enough. Consequently boys feel that they have much more agency and control over outcomes and will work hard to achieve their goals whereas girls become more passive.
Whatever, Bucko, give everybody your sources, make it tops, pinko.
Where are your sources to back it up? I need citations now, where are the articles?
Judit has beaten Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov on occasion, therefor it would seem that she would have beaten anybody before Anatoly Karpov.
I'm not suggesting that she would have won a long and gruelling match against anybody before Karpov ...but she would at least one game against anybody.
Heck, she might have blown Steinitz out the water, or crushed Lasker.
Who knows.
But what I do know is that Judit Polgar is arguably the best female chess player, ever and on a good day can beat anyone.