Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains

Oh dear, Nigel, why did you have to go and stir things up? He states that men's and women's brains are hard-wired differently (which is a biological fact), and that this hard-wiring means women aren't suited to chess. I don't know, maybe it's true on a general level, maybe it's not. There's no doubt chess is more popular among boys than girls at a young age, and there's no doubt that chess is a game of battle strategy which by definition is more likely to appeal to the more warlike male brain. Who knows? It's an interesting article. It's not without a certain amount of irony, however, that Short lost a classical series to Judit Polgar...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/chess/11548840/Nigel-Short-Girls-just-dont-have-the-brains-to-play-chess.html

That's what I love about Nigel - He can't resist stirring the pot. Hey, it worked for Donner...

Nigel Short is scared to play Carissa Yip.

Just goes to show that just because you are good at chess doesn't mean you're smart.

He is such a troll. Chess.com should invite him around to the forums. 

"She added: “Judit Polgar, the former women’s world champion, beat Nigel Short eight classical games to three in total with five draws."

Yeah he's probably right. Women are different than men, both physically and mentally. Women have more white matter, which connects different parts of the brain and aids in multi tasking, while men have more gray matter, which helps in focused tasks. Chess, especially longer time control grames, is a very focused game which requires a lot fo concentration. It's no surprise that men are, in general, better than women at chess. You can just look at the overall ratings of men vs. women as well. 

Garry Kasparov said that women are bad at chess because they're not fighters. It's true that women aren't fighters. Throughout history, men have been doing most of the fighting. Why? Because men have so much more testosterone. Men have a natural drive to fight while women simply don't.

Many people like to argue that society has forced women out of the chess world and if it weren't for society, they would be equal to men. I think that it is plausible, based on the differences in male and female brains, that women are naturally worse than men at chess.

Also, it doesn't matter that Judit Polgar beats Nigel at chess. She could probably beat me at chess too; it doesn't make me wrong. 

http://news.sky.com/story/1468579/men-better-than-women-at-chess-says-grandmaster

Meanwhile, the subject of racial difference is still taboo.
Come on, I want to see an actual study about differences between whites and blacks, latinos, etc. and their skills in chess.
Just be honest: how many black grandmasters can you name without googling except for Maurice Ashley?
 

I imagine that has more to do with demographics and social factors more than anything else. Studies have shown men's and women's brains are built differently. I'm not sure any biological research will back up the point you make.

It's not a point, I'm just genuinely curious about it.
I feel it's such a taboo to even consider that they're simply too afraid of attacks from the public to make a study. 

Don't hijack. Git yer own thread!

If the bottom is 2367, then they can beat 90% of this site easily, which is somewhere around a few millions.

If we had the same chess coaches as the women we would be better.

I don't know about chess talent, but in terms of promotional talent,

Nigel Short = Bobby Riggs.

I'm just sayin'.

Read carefully what Short said. Most of what he said shouldn't be controversial.

Even Judit Polgar agrees with most of Short's statement. Polgar does say that even though women's brains are different from men's brains, they can still excel in chess. They just have to do it differently than men do. 

In the past, Polgar herself has said that women have extra physical challenges to playing chess at the highest levels that men do not. 

This statement shows that the poster didn't read the article very closely.

What you don't realise is that Nigel never said that it was a sign of intelligence, nor that men are in any way more intelligent than women.

Here, lets make this easier. You're a man, I'm a woman. You read this:

Short said: “Why should they [men and women] function in the same way? I don’t have the slightest problem in acknowledging that my wife [Rea] possesses a much higher degree of emotional intelligence than I do.

“Likewise, she doesn’t feel embarrassed in asking me to manoeuvre the car out of our narrow garage.

“One is not better than the other, we just have different skills. It would be wonderful to see more girls playing chess, and at a higher level, but rather than fretting about inequality, perhaps we should just gracefully accept it as a fact.”

...and thought it wasn't controversial. I read typical sexism.

*"Emotional intelligence" is a typical sexist remark. In his eyes he sees it as a compliment. What he doesn't understand is it's an excluding remark. He excludes women of conceptual intelligence. He excludes men from emotional intelligence. Both sexes are capable of lacking emotional intelligence, just as both sexes are capable of a high degree of emotional intelligence. Women can also have a high degree of conceptual intelligence.

*The driving remark is a typical sexist remark. Women can't drive, have you heard?

*The last thing he says is just him thinking his sexist point of view on women is the reason why women don't play chess in greater numbers.

insipid board games suit the hardwiring of a male brain.