Main
Date: 21 May 2008 22:50:06
From: Bad Man
Subject: Polgar experiment
I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere near
the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. When
she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
bulldoze everyone on her way to the title. Perhaps Kasparov might offer some
resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age overtook
her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What does
that tell us about the female mind? Two things

1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.






 
Date: 24 May 2008 19:25:03
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 21, 10:50 am, "Bad Man" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere near
> the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. When
> she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
> bulldoze everyone on her way to the title. Perhaps Kasparov might offer some
> resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age overtook
> her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What does
> that tell us about the female mind? Two things
>
> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.

What does it tell us about your mind?

1. It does not exist;
2. Go to 1.

Wlod


  
Date: 25 May 2008 07:08:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment

"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On May 21, 10:50 am, "Bad Man" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere near
>> the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. When
>> she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
>> bulldoze everyone on her way to the title.

There seems to be various expectations being expressed here on what
credentials a female player should have. Becoming a GM, being youngest GM,
winning the world title in the age of Kasparov, etc.

>> Perhaps Kasparov might offer some
>> resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age
>> overtook
>> her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What
>> does
>> that tell us about the female mind? Two things

None of those players did particularly well against Kasparov either. You
could maybe add Petr Svidler as a potential champion. I am not quite sure
about J. Polgar's current standing in the world against Adams and Svidler,
but I think it is comparable, and rather better than World Champion
Khalifman.

If those gents took time off to 'have children', then shall we presume they
would not be even at their current levels?

>> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
>> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.

Switch the topic! Switch it to something that women have had a chance to
involve themselves in for a hundred years and to which they were previously
denied access - like medicine. Is there any evidence that female surgeons
are less efficacious than male ones? In the US at the time of the civil war
there were no female surgeons [no female MDs at all], now 55% of graduating
MDs are female.

That is a fairer test over time of gender differentials. To extrapolate the
potential of females in chess it is interesting to look at ratings growth of
men and women and assess which has the greater velocity?

Of course, ratings are not linear measures, even so, there appears to be no
evidential reason why chess should be different than any other discipline or
activity, and observation rather than ideation provides the answer to the
question of differing overall potential measured against current levels.

Phil Innes


> What does it tell us about your mind?
>
> 1. It does not exist;
> 2. Go to 1.
>
> Wlod




 
Date: 22 May 2008 22:10:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 21, 1:50 pm, "Bad Man" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere near
> the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. When
> she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
> bulldoze everyone on her way to the title. Perhaps Kasparov might offer some
> resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age overtook
> her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What does
> that tell us about the female mind? Two things
>
> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.

This was a very good troll post. As I understand it from
what little I have read, subtlety is key in slipping past the
"troll defenses" of the average newsgroup reader.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Is silly, as you cannot generalize from a single
example (even if the example were valid) like this.

2. Is wrong-headed, since playing a board-game
like chess is anything but "intellectual"; it is in
fact, a *waste* of intellect-- the biggest you will
find outside of an advertising agency.

Remember, it was not Judit Polgar who chose to
get good at chess; it was her father who forced her,
along with two other sisters, to study and train. As
far as I know, the only valid comparison would,
therefore, be to Gata Kamsky (who was mentioned
above).


-- help bot




 
Date: 22 May 2008 13:55:28
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
Bad Man <[email protected] > wrote:
> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Tool (TM): it's like a handy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool but it's genuinely
erotic!


  
Date: 23 May 2008 20:14:40
From: Bad Man
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:K1m*[email protected]
> Bad Man <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
>> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
>
>

The fact that there are not many top level women players itself is a proof
of what I'm saying. Thousands of women have taken chess seriously all over
the world and only one managed to make it to top 100. And that one, being
far ahead of players of her age at 13 failed to raise the level of her play
to pose any serious threat to male domination.



  
Date: 22 May 2008 22:14:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 22, 8:55 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Bad Man <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
> > 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

I was wondering what the technical term was for
making a hasty generalization; now I know.


-- help bot


   
Date: 23 May 2008 11:21:02
From: David Richerby
Subject: Logical fallacies (was Re: Polgar experiment)
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
>
> I was wondering what the technical term was for making a hasty
> generalization; now I know.

The following two URLs give lots more information about this kind of
thing.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Umbrella (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ umbrella but it's genuinely erotic!


    
Date: 23 May 2008 23:51:56
From: Nick Cramer
Subject: Re: Logical fallacies (was Re: Polgar experiment)
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
> >
> > I was wondering what the technical term was for making a hasty
> > generalization; now I know.
>
> The following two URLs give lots more information about this kind of
> thing.
>
> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Thanks for those, Dave. I've forwarded them to my grandchildren. Schools
are notorious for stuffing misinformation down kids throats. This should
help filter out the dross.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War. They
are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not
forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~


    
Date: 24 May 2008 09:37:42
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Logical fallacies (was Re: Polgar experiment)
David Richerby wrote:
>
> help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
> >
> > I was wondering what the technical term was for making a hasty
> > generalization; now I know.
>
> The following two URLs give lots more information about this kind of
> thing.
>
> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
>

This gURL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(plot_device)
demonstrates the lengths the above killjoys will go to take the thread
into really boring areas..


 
Date: 21 May 2008 11:41:52
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
Bad Man wrote:
> I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere near
> the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. When
> she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
> bulldoze everyone on her way to the title. Perhaps Kasparov might offer some
> resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age overtook
> her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What does
> that tell us about the female mind? Two things
>
> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.
>
>

1. No, it doesn't.

2. No, it doesn't.

Learn something about science, rhetoric, philosophy, and logic. And
them come back to us.

There is absolutely no point in arguing your bizarre views other than,
"No, it doesn't". Which is a more than sufficient answer.


  
Date: 29 May 2008 17:41:39
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
"Are you going to women? - Take a whip" F. Nietsche..

This is a great quote but I believe Nietsche actually wrote this as:

"so you choose to go to woman, well don't forget your whip!"

On the Subject of Female versus male chess ability I would like to add
that the Polgar sisters Judit in particular are clearly an anomaly.
One thing is for certain that Judit has got to be 200 elo points
better than any other lady-everv (Correct me if I wrong I did not
check this), another interesting thing is her style which is
overwhelmingly attacking surely a classic male trait.

I don't subscribe to the view that men are intellectually superior to
women but there are clear differences in terms of what males and
females focus on spatially, and in terms of focus. I am wondering if
the main reason that not more women a great at chess is that they lack
that "killer instict" type of focus that you must have to
consistently win at chess (something that Judit clearly has in her
style) it is almost a naive quality that most men have and in terms of
development and success in life have to be in control of ( in
relationships women take advantage of it) there may also be social
reasons
that just simply attract less women.

One interesting study would be to take samples of men and women who
have not played chess and all with the same IQ range train them over
6months and then monitor the results.

best to all,

scorsi


On May 21, 6:29=A0pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> johnny_t wrote:
> > There is absolutely no point in arguing your bizarre views other than,
> > "No, it doesn't". Which is a more than sufficient answer.
>
> No the aren't (his views - bizarre etc.). In fact I'd hazard a guess a
> great many people suspect the same but are fearful of expressing them
> because of the predictable reaction from moronic pc-types & girlie-boys
> such as yourself..
>
>


  
Date: 23 May 2008 22:51:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 23, 10:41 pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:

> > The one which will roll down a hill the longest and
> > fastest will be the one which holds together better.
>
> What if only one's a 'goer' & the other's a bit of a damp-squib?..

In that case, the "goer" wins by default, but the
game is not rated.


> > Whichever brain begins to fall apart quicker will of
> > course rapidly slow and splatter to a halt, while the
> > other keeps rolling a bit further down the hill.

> Righto! in which case we'd have a clear winner. Now which is it - the
> male brain or female brain? Did I mention that varnishing the brains to
> increase resilence falls within acceptable practice?..

Varnishing brains? No, no, no; varnishing is for
wood. (Brains are preserved by immersion in
formaldehyde.)


> > Keep in mind that there are no conventions with
> > regard to "proper" technique in brain hill-rolling, so
> > toss-speed and angle are paramount.

> No! tossing the organ (brain) is a definite no-no. See previous
> posting..

Are you by chance a magazine salesman?


> > In fact, I
> > think this is a very stupid experiment.

> So do I, but stupider & dumber things seem to abound. Let's keep this
> scientific. Is the male or female brain faster downhill? (hint - read
> Dolly mag.)..

I knew it! You are just trying to sell magazines,
to pocket your hefty commission. How about you
come to work for the USCF?


> > Even in head-to-head chess matches between
> > women and men, there are serious difficulties in
> > that psychology plays a huge "role". Instead of
> > wanting to "watch 'em squirm", as when playing
> > another male chess player,

> I'd agree with some of this, as in; if she's attractive I'm going to
> enjoy 'perving' on her during the game & I'm not going to mind losing -
> that much, whereas, sad to say, if she's ugly, covered in spots & has
> poor, personal hygiene I'd hate losing. Even playing other males I'm
> disinterested in their 'squirming' - 'crushing' 'em, sure, but the
> 'watch them squirm' types have the problem in my view..

Well, some strong players have /claimed/ that they
were not really trying to win, but are more interested
in artistic creation, blah, blah. But we all know that
if that were true, they would never have gotten half
as far as they did before failing to a psycho-Bobby
Fischer type who "likes to watch 'em squirm".


> > the typical male may
> > wish to /avoid confrontation/ (like when two giant
> > crocodiles begin their mating ritual) when facing
> > even a mildly attractive female chess player.
>
> > Over the years, some writers have attempted
> > to imply that a male chess player who is not
> > significantly weakened when facing a member
> > of the opposite sex, may well be a homosexual.
> > I read one article where a well-liked grandmaster
>
> The Korch. - yes?..

I don't recall which one exactly, but it may have
been Art Bisguier or someone like that. The
article appeared in Chess Lies magazine many
years ago. My best guess is it was one of the
following three GMs: Bisguier, Denker or Dake.


> > was exempted on account of his vast chess
> > superiority, but where less fortunate male
> > opponents were smeared unless they faltered
> > "on cue".

> Yes, I remember playing through some of the games between famous male
> GM's & bright, young, up & coming & spunky female GM's & wondering, now,
> is this 'on cue' here, has he just deliberately thrown the game to her,
> 'taken a powder' so to speak? - We'll never know..

Judit Polgar has taken out quite a few GMs over
the years, but the article I'm thinking of focused on
a much weaker female player-- somebody beatable.

Look, I'm not going to subscribe to this "Dolly"
magazine, just to read some article about brain-
rolling down hills. I'm not even interested in the
rolling of brains-- up, down or sideways.

Besides, who ever heard of naming a magazine
after a sheep?


-- help bot


  
Date: 24 May 2008 12:41:07
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
help bot wrote:
>
> On May 23, 7:16 pm, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
> > johnny_t wrote:
> > > Nope, still not worth arguing, because the premise is so flawed it's
> > > nonsensical.
> >
> > Ok, I'll accept that arguing the differences between males & females,
> > while of interest to some, is perhaps of nugatory value. Instead, let me
> > leave you with a little scientific observation. To wit: if you take a
> > male brain & a female brain up the top of a hill & roll 'em down, guess
> > which goes longest & fastest? (hint, read 'Dolly' magazine)..
>
> The one which will roll down a hill the longest and
> fastest will be the one which holds together better.

What if only one's a 'goer' & the other's a bit of a damp-squib?..

> Whichever brain begins to fall apart quicker will of
> course rapidly slow and splatter to a halt, while the
> other keeps rolling a bit further down the hill.

Righto! in which case we'd have a clear winner. Now which is it - the
male brain or female brain? Did I mention that varnishing the brains to
increase resilence falls within acceptable practice?..

>
> Keep in mind that there are no conventions with
> regard to "proper" technique in brain hill-rolling, so
> toss-speed and angle are paramount.

No! tossing the organ (brain) is a definite no-no. See previous
posting..

> In fact, I
> think this is a very stupid experiment.

So do I, but stupider & dumber things seem to abound. Let's keep this
scientific. Is the male or female brain faster downhill? (hint - read
Dolly mag.)..

>
> Even in head-to-head chess matches between
> women and men, there are serious difficulties in
> that psychology plays a huge "role". Instead of
> wanting to "watch 'em squirm", as when playing
> another male chess player,

I'd agree with some of this, as in; if she's attractive I'm going to
enjoy 'perving' on her during the game & I'm not going to mind losing -
that much, whereas, sad to say, if she's ugly, covered in spots & has
poor, personal hygiene I'd hate losing. Even playing other males I'm
disinterested in their 'squirming' - 'crushing' 'em, sure, but the
'watch them squirm' types have the problem in my view..

> the typical male may
> wish to /avoid confrontation/ (like when two giant
> crocodiles begin their mating ritual) when facing
> even a mildly attractive female chess player.
>
> Over the years, some writers have attempted
> to imply that a male chess player who is not
> significantly weakened when facing a member
> of the opposite sex, may well be a homosexual.
> I read one article where a well-liked grandmaster

The Korch. - yes?..

> was exempted on account of his vast chess
> superiority, but where less fortunate male
> opponents were smeared unless they faltered
> "on cue".

Yes, I remember playing through some of the games between famous male
GM's & bright, young, up & coming & spunky female GM's & wondering, now,
is this 'on cue' here, has he just deliberately thrown the game to her,
'taken a powder' so to speak? - We'll never know..

> Sure, there are plenty of hack writers
> in chess, but there could be /something/ to this
> sort of thinking.
..


  
Date: 23 May 2008 19:06:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 23, 8:52 pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > Look, if you want to conduct a "scientific"
> > experiment in brain-rolling, you're going to need
> > a standardized rolling surface (not some random
> > hill) and brain-tossing technique which can be
> > replicated. At present, only Predators who
> > have come to Earth "with a few days to kill" are
> > up to the task. In sum, brain-rolling is just plain
> > dumb.
>
> Ah well!, you could have a nice wee bonnie hillock in Scatland all
> covered in braw heather. Yee then carpet the mound with thousands of
> vinyl chess boards & gently set the brains in motion. (Don't know where
> you got the notion that to set the brains rollin' rollin' rollin'
> required some sort of shot-put maneuver - helpnot, that would surely be
> the height of dumbth.)..

It's not *my* idea, laddie. It's called Fig Newton's
Law of Gravitationizationamundo. You see, how
it works is this: a brain which is at rest tends to
stay at rest. And a brain which is rolling tends to
continue rolling-- at the same velocity. In order to
impart velocity, you need a party of the first part,
who imparts /force/ on the object in question,
which is the party of the second part.

That's where the brain-tossing comes in. The
party of the first part applies /force/ to the party
of the second part, which then either sues the
party of the first part (think Sam Sloan), or else
begins rolling down the hill. I agree that the
brains could be set in motion /gently/ by some
alternate method, but where's the fun in that?

In any case, in order to meet standards of the
scientific community, you need a game where
the methods and results can be /replicated/ by
others. Again, this brings us back to movies,
and the one I'm thinking of is "Coma" -- where
folks were either replicated or else their bodies
were taken over by pod-like aliens... it's been
too long for me to recall such details. Ah, but
there was also a Star Trek episode in which
the victim was placed on a large wheel opposite
his clone, and when the wheel was spun at
sufficient /velocity/ (sorry about all the technical
terminology, folks), the clone morphed into a
perfect copy of Captain Kirk. I never did
understand why they did this with him, instead
of, say, one of the beautiful, female yeomen... .

Anyhow... look up Dr. Newton-- the fellow who
invented cookies and discovered gravitation-
izationamundo, before which time everyone
thought that objects just sat there, in mid air!


-- help bot




  
Date: 24 May 2008 10:52:33
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
help bot wrote:

> Look, if you want to conduct a "scientific"
> experiment in brain-rolling, you're going to need
> a standardized rolling surface (not some random
> hill) and brain-tossing technique which can be
> replicated. At present, only Predators who
> have come to Earth "with a few days to kill" are
> up to the task. In sum, brain-rolling is just plain
> dumb.

Ah well!, you could have a nice wee bonnie hillock in Scatland all
covered in braw heather. Yee then carpet the mound with thousands of
vinyl chess boards & gently set the brains in motion. (Don't know where
you got the notion that to set the brains rollin' rollin' rollin'
required some sort of shot-put maneuver - helpnot, that would surely be
the height of dumbth.)..


  
Date: 23 May 2008 16:50:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 23, 7:16 pm, nobody <[email protected] > wrote:
> johnny_t wrote:
> > Nope, still not worth arguing, because the premise is so flawed it's
> > nonsensical.
>
> Ok, I'll accept that arguing the differences between males & females,
> while of interest to some, is perhaps of nugatory value. Instead, let me
> leave you with a little scientific observation. To wit: if you take a
> male brain & a female brain up the top of a hill & roll 'em down, guess
> which goes longest & fastest? (hint, read 'Dolly' magazine)..

The one which will roll down a hill the longest and
fastest will be the one which holds together better.
Whichever brain begins to fall apart quicker will of
course rapidly slow and splatter to a halt, while the
other keeps rolling a bit further down the hill.

Keep in mind that there are no conventions with
regard to "proper" technique in brain hill-rolling, so
toss-speed and angle are paramount. In fact, I
think this is a very stupid experiment.

Even in head-to-head chess matches between
women and men, there are serious difficulties in
that psychology plays a huge "role". Instead of
wanting to "watch 'em squirm", as when playing
another male chess player, the typical male may
wish to /avoid confrontation/ (like when two giant
crocodiles begin their mating ritual) when facing
even a mildly attractive female chess player.

Over the years, some writers have attempted
to imply that a male chess player who is not
significantly weakened when facing a member
of the opposite sex, may well be a homosexual.
I read one article where a well-liked grandmaster
was exempted on account of his vast chess
superiority, but where less fortunate male
opponents were smeared unless they faltered
"on cue". Sure, there are plenty of hack writers
in chess, but there could be /something/ to this
sort of thinking.

Look, if you want to conduct a "scientific"
experiment in brain-rolling, you're going to need
a standardized rolling surface (not some random
hill) and brain-tossing technique which can be
replicated. At present, only Predators who
have come to Earth "with a few days to kill" are
up to the task. In sum, brain-rolling is just plain
dumb.


-- help bot


  
Date: 22 May 2008 11:29:55
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
johnny_t wrote:


> There is absolutely no point in arguing your bizarre views other than,
> "No, it doesn't". Which is a more than sufficient answer.

No the aren't (his views - bizarre etc.). In fact I'd hazard a guess a
great many people suspect the same but are fearful of expressing them
because of the predictable reaction from moronic pc-types & girlie-boys
such as yourself..

"Are you going to women? - Take a whip" F. Nietsche..


   
Date: 22 May 2008 06:50:51
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
nobody wrote:
> johnny_t wrote:
>
>
>> There is absolutely no point in arguing your bizarre views other than,
>> "No, it doesn't". Which is a more than sufficient answer.
>
> No the aren't (his views - bizarre etc.). In fact I'd hazard a guess a
> great many people suspect the same but are fearful of expressing them
> because of the predictable reaction from moronic pc-types & girlie-boys
> such as yourself..
>
> "Are you going to women? - Take a whip" F. Nietsche..

Wtf are you talking about? I am not questioning any of this on PC
grounds. I am saying the claims have no basis in science, that it is a
poorly formed piece of rhetoric, that it is logically flawed, and is
failure of philosophical truth. Just as I said.

It is as ridiculous as measuring the gravity of a lemon and comparing
that to greenlands fashion output compared to pinecone sizes.

It is nonsense, not even worth talking about, other than to state it is
nonsense,


    
Date: 23 May 2008 14:35:20
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
johnny_t wrote:
>
> nobody wrote:
> > johnny_t wrote:
> >
> >
> >> There is absolutely no point in arguing your bizarre views other than,
> >> "No, it doesn't". Which is a more than sufficient answer.
> >
> > No they aren't (his views - bizarre etc.). In fact I'd hazard a guess a
> > great many people suspect the same but are fearful of expressing them
> > because of the predictable reaction from moronic pc-types & girlie-boys
> > such as yourself..
> >
> > "Are you going to women? - Take a whip" F. Nietsche..
>
> Wtf are you talking about? I am not questioning any of this on PC
> grounds.

Are too so, you just don't realise it because you're brainwashed -
see?..

> I am saying the claims have no basis in science, that it is a
> poorly formed piece of rhetoric, that it is logically flawed, and is
> failure of philosophical truth. Just as I said.

Oh! is science the final arbiter in all this - eh? Scientists instead of
playing God should stick to their proper paddock, which is nuts & bolts.
And regarding rhetoric, logic & philosophy I'd like to see you argue
your shtick with master philoligist Nietzsche. Now, you & I needn't be
in agreement with the crazed & syphilitic nutbag's ideas on women, but
it does constitute a body of thought that's been around since, well,
Adam. Catherine was 'great' - wasn't she? Anyway, for further
revelations on this most absorbing of topics I'd recommend googling the
word _misogyny_ just to, as it were, flesh out the bones, of this
well-known condition 'humane'..

>
> It is as ridiculous as measuring the gravity of a lemon and comparing
> that to greenlands fashion output compared to pinecone sizes.

Is it really? Well, if you say so - I suppose..

>
> It is nonsense, not even worth talking about, other than to state it is
> nonsense,

Not..


     
Date: 23 May 2008 08:10:43
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
nobody wrote:

> Are too so,

OMG. Really. Now, see if you can match the rhetorical genius of the
original poster.

But what I really like is that your brilliant insight that you bring to
the table is that science is not trustworthy.

Nope, still not worth arguing, because the premise is so flawed it's
nonsensical.



      
Date: 24 May 2008 09:16:58
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
johnny_t wrote:

> Nope, still not worth arguing, because the premise is so flawed it's
> nonsensical.

Ok, I'll accept that arguing the differences between males & females,
while of interest to some, is perhaps of nugatory value. Instead, let me
leave you with a little scientific observation. To wit: if you take a
male brain & a female brain up the top of a hill & roll 'em down, guess
which goes longest & fastest? (hint, read 'Dolly' magazine)..


 
Date: 21 May 2008 11:37:11
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 21, 1:50=A0pm, "Bad Man" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere near
> the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. When
> she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
> bulldoze everyone on her way to the title. Perhaps Kasparov might offer so=
me
> resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age overtook=

> her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What doe=
s
> that tell us about the female mind? Two things
>
> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.

Judit Polgar is a better chessplayer than all but about 20 men on
the entire planet. By your logic, this should tell us that:

1. The male mind struggles (and fails) to keep pace with Polgar's
mind after (and before) puberty.
2. Adult men are generally intellectualy inferior to Judit Polgar.




  
Date: 22 May 2008 11:52:18
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
[email protected] wrote:

> > that tell us about the female mind? Two things
> >
> > 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
> > 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.


> Judit Polgar is a better chessplayer than all but about 20 men on
> the entire planet. By your logic, this should tell us that:

Was, might be more accurate here & I don't think what follows is all
that logical..

>
> 1. The male mind struggles (and fails) to keep pace with Polgar's
> mind after (and before) puberty.

Generally speaking, Judit Polgar is a better chess-player than most
men..

> 2. Adult men are generally intellectualy inferior to Judit Polgar.

Generally speaking, Marie Curie was one smart cookie..


  
Date: 21 May 2008 17:19:17
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment
On May 21, 8:03=A0pm, "Bad Man" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
> On May 21, 1:50 pm, "Bad Man" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere ne=
ar
> >> the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. Wh=
en
> >> she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
> >> bulldoze everyone on her way to the title. Perhaps Kasparov might offer=

> >> some
> >> resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age
> >> overtook
> >> her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What
> >> does
> >> that tell us about the female mind? Two things
>
> >> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.=

> >> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.
> > =A0Judit Polgar is a better chessplayer than all but about 20 men on
> >the entire planet. By your logic, this should tell us that:
> > 1. The male mind struggles (and fails) to keep pace with Polgar's
> > mind after (and before) puberty.
> > 2. Adult men are generally intellectualy inferior to Judit Polgar.
>
> This is not my logic. Being a better chess player requires hardwork,
> training and practice which 99.9999% of the men don't get. I compared her
> with men who got equal or less of these than herself (Kramnik, Adams, Shir=
ov
> etc) and all of them are clearly better than her and her sisters all of wh=
om
> were specially trained by a very young age.

Actually Judit Polgar is clearly better than the great majority of
men who by "hardwork [sic],
training and practice" devote their lives to chess. There are about
1,000 grandmasters in the world, of whom she is in the top 2%. So
again your logic is seriously flawed.


  
Date: 22 May 2008 05:03:51
From: Bad Man
Subject: Re: Polgar experiment

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On May 21, 1:50 pm, "Bad Man" <[email protected] > wrote:
>> I think its safe to say that J. Polgar is not going to come anywhere near
>> the world title. Not only that, she hasn't won any super tournament. When
>> she became the youngest GM at 13, many had the opinion that she would
>> bulldoze everyone on her way to the title. Perhaps Kasparov might offer
>> some
>> resistance. However other male players who were weaker at her age
>> overtook
>> her easily (Kramnink, Shirov, Anand, Topalov, Adams, Kamsky etc). What
>> does
>> that tell us about the female mind? Two things
>>
>> 1. Female mind struggles to keep pace with the Male mind after puberty.
>> 2. Adult men are intellectualy superior to Adult women generally.

> Judit Polgar is a better chessplayer than all but about 20 men on
>the entire planet. By your logic, this should tell us that:

> 1. The male mind struggles (and fails) to keep pace with Polgar's
> mind after (and before) puberty.
> 2. Adult men are generally intellectualy inferior to Judit Polgar.

This is not my logic. Being a better chess player requires hardwork,
training and practice which 99.9999% of the men don't get. I compared her
with men who got equal or less of these than herself (Kramnik, Adams, Shirov
etc) and all of them are clearly better than her and her sisters all of whom
were specially trained by a very young age.