"David Richerby" wrote in message
...

`87.1% of statistics are made up on the spot.'

Figures don't lie...

StanB

"Terry" wrote in message
...
"Nick" wrote in message
om...(to Phil Innes):
(snipped)
Do men--and men alone--have the right to decide what's best for women who
play chess? If a woman does not have any objection to being able to play
in some separate women's events, then I should prefer not to make that
objection on her behalf. In my view, separate "women's chess" events
could be justified for at least utilitarian reasons if they succeed in
encouraging more women and girls to become interested in chess at this time.

Thats ok if men can have men only tournaments. That is equality for you.

Is it not better for chess to have more women and girls playing chess at this
time, regardless of the gender composition of some of their chess events?

--Nick

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
Do men--and men alone--have the right to decide what's best for women who
play chess? If a woman does not have any objection to being able to play
in some separate women's events, then I should prefer not to make that
objection on her behalf. In my view, separate "women's chess" events
could be justified for at least utilitarian reasons if they succeed in
encouraging more women and girls to become interested in chess at this time.

At the time of the American civil war women were disbarred from being
surgeons (doctors) since that activity was thought to be 'too rigorous' for
them, The terrible loss of life from _attrition_ (took more lives than than
ever the enemy did) a massive effort recruited women to the nursing
profession. A program that achieved radical success in saving lives.
That was the entry point for women to medicine 150 years ago.
Today 55% of graduating US MDs are female.

Mr Innes, I am not certain that it's the most fitting analogy with respect
to the success of women to compare professional chess grandmasters with
medical doctors in the United States. I also have heard professional chess
grandmasters being compared to top professional mathematicians, of whom
only a small minority are women at this time. Time alone may tell which
analogy seems better.

Historically, if we eliminate V. Menchik in the 1930s as a 'statistical
widow' the succession of women to IM and GM titles is only, what, 30 years
old? On the face of it unless there is an indepenent track for women's play
there will not be enough of them currently in the game to encourage each
other, and their ratings will peak and stall. Just a few years ago I
remember in chess.misc no one thought that Judit Polgar could play against
first tier male opponents. In fact the same arguments were applied,
insufficient agression and so on ~ and these views were even espoused by
a psychologist!

Presumably by a male psychologist. :-)

Rationally [as Tim Hanke likes to say] from any statistical basis drawn
from current probablity, this projection is a truism; however Polgar's
demonstration was the first to deflate all question of sufficient ability.
To draw a parallel between the US civil war participation in medicine and
chess-entry for women, it's obviously a matter of a critical mass of women
playing the game, and simply by force of numbers, unless there can be a
seperate track for women, a sufficient volume of woman players to achieve
any critical mass cannot come about in a relatively short time period.

Yes, that's a utilitarian argument for some separate women's chess events.

What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will
55% of Grandmasters will be women?

I have to say there is at least some doubt that 'in 100 years 55% of
Grandmasters will be women'. I should be quite reluctant to predict what
chess or human societies could be like one century (not in cricket!) from now.
To what extent could chess have become 'analysed to death' by computers?
What could be the common or 'normal' relationships between men and women?
And might the human race have become extinct before that time?

--Nick

That was the entry point for women to medicine 150 years ago.
Today 55% of graduating US MDs are female.

Mr Innes,

Mr. Nick,

I am not certain that it's the most fitting analogy with respect
to the success of women to compare professional chess grandmasters with
medical doctors in the United States. I also have heard professional
chess
grandmasters being compared to top professional mathematicians, of whom
only a small minority are women at this time. Time alone may tell which
analogy seems better.

It was true 10 years ago that 1% of engineers were women. My son says
graduating women now occupy about 10 percentile. As you know engineers are
either of the practical sort, applied engineering, or of the theoretical
sort. These theorists like to worry about the physics and mathematics of the
universe, and why there are insufficient quarks compared with theory, etc.
He says that the split of engineering students is about 65% practical, to
35% theorists.

I perhaps should have emphasised that the discussion had nothing so much to
do with women's ability to undertake tasks, as to male attitudes about their
place in society. Historically I think we must acknowledge this
*sociological* factor - it is only 100 years [4 generations] since women
could contract for property in the US, no?

Historically, if we eliminate V. Menchik in the 1930s as a 'statistical
widow' the succession of women to IM and GM titles is only, what, 30
years
old? On the face of it unless there is an indepenent track for women's
play
there will not be enough of them currently in the game to encourage each
other, and their ratings will peak and stall. Just a few years ago I
remember in chess.misc no one thought that Judit Polgar could play
against
first tier male opponents. In fact the same arguments were applied,
insufficient agression and so on ~ and these views were even espoused by
a psychologist!

Presumably by a male psychologist. :-)

Yes. But I would like to note that the basis of the person's objections were
not sociological, as above, but psychological.

Its amusing that someone wrote me recently that the gap between men and
women in the US is being closed, not because women are acquiring more male
behavioral characteristics, but because males have eaten too much
female-growth hormone in their hamburgers :-)

Rationally [as Tim Hanke likes to say] from any statistical basis drawn
from current probablity, this projection is a truism; however Polgar's
demonstration was the first to deflate all question of sufficient
ability.
To draw a parallel between the US civil war participation in medicine
and
chess-entry for women, it's obviously a matter of a critical mass of
women
playing the game, and simply by force of numbers, unless there can be a
seperate track for women, a sufficient volume of woman players to
achieve
any critical mass cannot come about in a relatively short time period.

Yes, that's a utilitarian argument for some separate women's chess events.

It constitutes a proof. And people like to say that it is an exception which
proves the rule. An oxymoron! Actually exceptions disprove the rule!

What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will
55% of Grandmasters will be women?

I have to say there is at least some doubt that 'in 100 years 55% of
Grandmasters will be women'.

I know its a seeming crazy question. But I really wanted to observe /how/
you answered, rather than what you answered. [chasing my idea from above, of
sociological or psychological responses, as types]

I should be quite reluctant to predict what
chess or human societies could be like one century (not in cricket!) from
now.
To what extent could chess have become 'analysed to death' by computers?

To what extent is this appreciable by humans? After all there are 100s of
chess books out there full of lines that few understand or have even read,
nevermind remember.

What could be the common or 'normal' relationships between men and women?
And might the human race have become extinct before that time?

See, you reply sociologically

Cordially, Phil

--Nick

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
- it is only 100 years [4 generations] since women
could contract for property in the US, no?

1839 The first state (Mississippi) grants women the right to hold property
in their own name, with their husbands’ permission.

http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html

"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
- it is only 100 years [4 generations] since women
could contract for property in the US, no?

1839 The first state (Mississippi) grants women the right to hold property
in their own name, with their husbands' permission.

http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html

Thank you Neil, I never even suspected that Mississippi would be some 80
years in advance of the whole nation. Franco-European influence? Phil

Except in the areas of civil rights and race relations the South has always
been suprisingly progressive. Most Southern states had a populist element
especially among poor white farmers and share croppers. The Progressive
movement in the late 19th and early 20th was nation wide including the South.
Boosted by depressions, such as occured in the 1890's, demands for
modernization, and the business practices of Eastern business establishments
and the organization of labor, the Progressive Movement seemed the course of
the future. However, most of its best ideas were coopted by older established
politial parties or disparaged as leftest or socialist.

The fact that the South was backwards, and suffering from the aftermath of the
Civil War made the demands for reform and need for reforms even greater. These
facts gave an opportunity for demagoguery as well as legitimate political and
social reforms.

Phil Innes wrote:

In 1839 The first state (Mississippi) grants women the right to hold property
in their own name, with their husbands' permission.

http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html

Thank you Neil, I never even suspected that Mississippi would be some 80
years in advance of the whole nation. Franco-European influence? Phil

"Phil Innes" wrote:
Phil Innes wrote:
That was the entry point for women to medicine 150 years ago.
Today 55% of graduating US MDs are female.

Nick wrote:
I am not certain that it's the most fitting analogy with respect to the
success of women to compare professional chess grandmasters with medical
doctors in the United States. I also have heard professional chess
grandmasters being compared to top professional mathematicians, of whom
only a small minority are women at this time. Time alone may tell which
analogy seems better.

It was true 10 years ago that 1% of engineers were women. My son says
graduating women now occupy about 10 percentile. As you know engineers are
either of the practical sort, applied engineering, or of the theoretical
sort. These theorists like to worry about the physics and mathematics of the
universe, and why there are insufficient quarks compared with theory, etc.

In academic circles known to me, cosmologists are not regarded as 'engineers'.

He says that the split of engineering students is about 65% practical, to
35% theorists.

Phil, on the note of "I said 'apples'; you say 'oranges'", I wrote of
'top professional mathematicians', and you write of 'engineering students'.

I perhaps should have emphasised that the discussion had nothing so much
to do with women's ability to undertake tasks, as to male attitudes about
their place in society. Historically I think we must acknowledge this
*sociological* factor

Phil, you should address your point to Tim Hanke, who created this thread.

- it is only 100 years [4 generations] since women could contract
for property in the US, no?

Thanks to Neil Brennen for his historical note.

Historically, if we eliminate V. Menchik in the 1930s as a 'statistical
widow' the succession of women to IM and GM titles is only, what, 30
years old? On the face of it unless there is an indepenent track for
women's play there will not be enough of them currently in the game to
encourage each other, and their ratings will peak and stall. Just a few
years ago I remember in chess.misc no one thought that Judit Polgar could
play against first tier male opponents. In fact the same arguments were
applied, insufficient agression and so on ~ and these views were even
espoused by a psychologist!

Presumably by a male psychologist. :-)

Yes. But I would like to note that the basis of the person's objections
were not sociological, as above, but psychological.

I have *not* read anything in that specific discussion (cited by Phil Innes).

As I recall, Bob Musicant, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, has written in the
RGCM thread, "Why women are less efficient at chess than men?" (October 2003),
that the question, in effect, of "Why are women weaker than men at chess?
Is it biology or culture?", could be answered by just a biological explanation,
"different brain structure/function" (which is *not* to say that I am certain
that he would exclude all other potential explanations).

Its amusing that someone wrote me recently that the gap between men and
women in the US is being closed, not because women are acquiring more
male behavioral characteristics, but because males have eaten too much
female-growth hormone in their hamburgers :-)

Perhaps someone will invoke the 'mad cow disease' rationalisation for one's
blunders in chess. :-)

For whatever it's worth, when there were very few GMs from China and India,
I predicted that someday, after more Chinese and Indians had become interested
in chess and able to compete often enough in strong international events, there
should be many GMs from China and India. My prediction was then ridiculed by
some Europeans on apparently racist grounds, though usually expressed in their
euphemistic terms. I even heard someone ignorantly claim that China and India
have no historical traditions of playing chess or games similar to chess! :-)

Rationally [as Tim Hanke likes to say] from any statistical basis drawn
from current probablity, this projection is a truism; however Polgar's
demonstration was the first to deflate all question of sufficient
ability. To draw a parallel between the US civil war participation in
medicine and chess-entry for women, it's obviously a matter of a critical
mass of women playing the game, and simply by force of numbers, unless
there can be a seperate track for women, a sufficient volume of woman
players to achieve any critical mass cannot come about in a relatively
short time period.

Yes, that's a utilitarian argument for some separate women's chess events.

It constitutes a proof.

Phil, I have to say that it's unclear to me exactly what you regard as having
proven. I concur that Judit Polgar has proven that a woman can play chess
nearly as well as the best men players in the world. But your other comments
about 'a parallel between the US civil war participation in medicine and
chess-entry for women' seem to be nothing more yet than a plausible argument.

And people like to say that it is an exception which proves the rule.

I hope that a sensible person should only say that with intended irony. :-)

An oxymoron! Actually exceptions disprove the rule!

What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will
55% of Grandmasters will be women?

I have to say there is at least some doubt that 'in 100 years 55% of
Grandmasters will be women'.

I know its a seeming crazy question. But I really wanted to observe /how/
you answered, rather than what you answered. [chasing my idea from above,
of sociological or psychological responses, as types]

I should be quite reluctant to predict what chess or human societies
could be like one century (not in cricket!) from now. To what extent
could chess have become 'analysed to death' by computers?

To what extent is this appreciable by humans? After all there are 100s of
chess books out there full of lines that few understand or have even read,
nevermind remember.

If chess will have become substantially, or perhaps even completely, 'solved'
at some future time, then how much interest will men or women continue to have
in playing it?

What could be the common or 'normal' relationships between men and women?
And might the human race have become extinct before that time?

See, you reply sociologically

I tend to reply by being restrained in my 'future historical' conjectures. :-)

--Nick

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
it is only 100 years [4 generations] since women
could contract for property in the US, no?

1839 The first state (Mississippi) grants women the right to hold
property in their own name, with their husbands' permission.
http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html

Thank you Neil, I never even suspected that Mississippi would be some 80
years in advance of the whole nation. Franco-European influence? Phil

If 'Franco-European influence' had been responsible in Mississippi, then
should that influence not have been even stronger in Louisiana, which still
has state laws that are derived from the Code of Napoleon?

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
"Phil Innes" wrote:
Phil Innes wrote:
That was the entry point for women to medicine 150 years ago.
Today 55% of graduating US MDs are female.

Nick wrote:
I am not certain that it's the most fitting analogy with respect to
the
success of women to compare professional chess grandmasters with
medical
doctors in the United States. I also have heard professional chess
grandmasters being compared to top professional mathematicians, of
whom
only a small minority are women at this time. Time alone may tell
which
analogy seems better.

It was true 10 years ago that 1% of engineers were women. My son says
graduating women now occupy about 10 percentile. As you know engineers
are
either of the practical sort, applied engineering, or of the theoretical
sort. These theorists like to worry about the physics and mathematics of
the
universe, and why there are insufficient quarks compared with theory,
etc.

In academic circles known to me, cosmologists are not regarded as
'engineers'.

I agree.

He says that the split of engineering students is about 65% practical,
to
35% theorists.

Phil, on the note of "I said 'apples'; you say 'oranges'", I wrote of
'top professional mathematicians', and you write of 'engineering
students'.

Typical Philsy.

I perhaps should have emphasised that the discussion had nothing so much
to do with women's ability to undertake tasks, as to male attitudes
about
their place in society. Historically I think we must acknowledge this
*sociological* factor

Phil, you should address your point to Tim Hanke, who created this thread.

- it is only 100 years [4 generations] since women could contract
for property in the US, no?

Thanks to Neil Brennen for his historical note.

As usual, Philsy tossed off one of his 'insights' without any thought. He
also didn't clarify if he meant all women, or married women under their own
names. I find it hard to believe that women couldn't own property in the USA
until 1904.

Historically, if we eliminate V. Menchik in the 1930s as a
'statistical
widow' the succession of women to IM and GM titles is only, what, 30
years old? On the face of it unless there is an indepenent track for
women's play there will not be enough of them currently in the game
to
encourage each other, and their ratings will peak and stall. Just a
few
years ago I remember in chess.misc no one thought that Judit Polgar
could
play against first tier male opponents. In fact the same arguments
were
applied, insufficient agression and so on ~ and these views were
even
espoused by a psychologist!

Presumably by a male psychologist. :-)

Yes.

Rolf?

But I would like to note that the basis of the person's objections
were not sociological, as above, but psychological.

I have *not* read anything in that specific discussion (cited by Phil
Innes).

As I recall, Bob Musicant, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, has written in
the
RGCM thread, "Why women are less efficient at chess than men?" (October
2003),
that the question, in effect, of "Why are women weaker than men at chess?
Is it biology or culture?", could be answered by just a biological
explanation,
"different brain structure/function" (which is *not* to say that I am
certain
that he would exclude all other potential explanations).

Its amusing that someone wrote me recently that the gap between men and
women in the US is being closed, not because women are acquiring more
male behavioral characteristics, but because males have eaten too much
female-growth hormone in their hamburgers :-)

Perhaps someone will invoke the 'mad cow disease' rationalisation for
one's
blunders in chess. :-)

For whatever it's worth, when there were very few GMs from China and
India,
I predicted that someday, after more Chinese and Indians had become
interested
in chess and able to compete often enough in strong international events,
there
should be many GMs from China and India. My prediction was then ridiculed
by
some Europeans on apparently racist grounds, though usually expressed in
their
euphemistic terms. I even heard someone ignorantly claim that China and
India
have no historical traditions of playing chess or games similar to chess!
:-)

Rationally [as Tim Hanke likes to say] from any statistical basis
drawn
from current probablity, this projection is a truism; however
Polgar's
demonstration was the first to deflate all question of sufficient
ability. To draw a parallel between the US civil war participation
in
medicine and chess-entry for women, it's obviously a matter of a
critical
mass of women playing the game, and simply by force of numbers,
unless
there can be a seperate track for women, a sufficient volume of
woman
players to achieve any critical mass cannot come about in a
relatively
short time period.

Yes, that's a utilitarian argument for some separate women's chess
events.

It constitutes a proof.

Phil, I have to say that it's unclear to me exactly what you regard as
having
proven.

Again, a common reaction to Philsy.

I concur that Judit Polgar has proven that a woman can play chess
nearly as well as the best men players in the world. But your other
comments
about 'a parallel between the US civil war participation in medicine and
chess-entry for women' seem to be nothing more yet than a plausible
argument.

And people like to say that it is an exception which proves the rule.

I hope that a sensible person should only say that with intended irony.
:-)

An oxymoron! Actually exceptions disprove the rule!

What do you think? Is there any doubt that in 100 years will
55% of Grandmasters will be women?

I have to say there is at least some doubt that 'in 100 years 55% of
Grandmasters will be women'.

I know its a seeming crazy question. But I really wanted to observe
/how/
you answered, rather than what you answered. [chasing my idea from
above,
of sociological or psychological responses, as types]

I should be quite reluctant to predict what chess or human societies
could be like one century (not in cricket!) from now. To what extent
could chess have become 'analysed to death' by computers?

To what extent is this appreciable by humans? After all there are 100s
of
chess books out there full of lines that few understand or have even
read,
nevermind remember.

If chess will have become substantially, or perhaps even completely,
'solved'
at some future time, then how much interest will men or women continue to
have
in playing it?

What could be the common or 'normal' relationships between men and
women?
And might the human race have become extinct before that time?

See, you reply sociologically

I tend to reply by being restrained in my 'future historical' conjectures.
:-)

--Nick