/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20949196]

I'm not memeing or being edgy, I genuinely believe women are incapable of creating anything good. Every single time I get recommended "a good female writer", even here, I end up wasting my time reading something mediocre at best.
Maybe it's just time to admit that women can't write. The experiment of giving them a chance to measure up to men failed.

[Anonymous No.20949217]

>>20949196
Only going for fiction, you're right. The Brontë sisters, Ursula LeGuin are fine. Agatha Christie too, although I don't get why she's the only Golden Age detective novel writer people remember. Maybe George Sand, Elsa Triolet, Marie-Madeleine de La Fayette. I don't know, I think you're right, I'm really stretching it. I'm not mentionning the famous ones I find overrated.
As far as non-fiction is concerned, there are many good female authors.

[Anonymous No.20949230]

>>20949217
>Ursula LeGuin
One of the reasons I came to the conclusion in the OP. The only thing dumber than a woman is a woman believing in fairytales like anarchism.

[Anonymous No.20949435]

>>20949217
Women really like murder stories for some reason, and I guess Agatha Christie taps into whatever that fascination is more effectively than most.

[Anonymous No.20949456]

Should I read Anne Rice, bros? There's a part of me that's vaguely curious.

[Anonymous No.20949471]

Virginia Woolf is good.
A lot of women poets are good. Dickinson, Browning, Rossetti, but yeah that's about it.

[Anonymous No.20949537]

>>20949196
I don't know why people use Fischer's quote today after Judit Polgar and many other female GMs exist. Yes, in Fischer's day, the quote was correct. He could, probably, have given Knight-odds to any woman in the world and beaten her. But Judit Polgar proved that women are indeed capable of competing at top-level chess. There is NO WAY that he could have given Polgar Knight-odds and beaten her. It's not just Polgar either, there are many women who are grandmasters today, none of whom he could beat with knight-odds.

The gender gap in chess has nothing to do with intelligence. IQ tests prove that the average man is as intelligent as the average woman. Rather, it has to do with male vs female temperaments. Chess is a very autistic, nerdy, asocial hobby. This appeals to nerdy introverted boys who find it hard to talk to girls and don't play sports etc..

Polgar's father was a psychologist who conducted an experiment on his own daughters to see if the gender gap in chess was indeed a product of "sex differences" or just socialisation. He taught them all to play chess from a young age. All of his daughters became great players, Polgar especially.

Of course if you don't know anything about chess you'll use these ancient quotes which have been refuted by the passage of time.

[Anonymous No.20949570]

>>20949537
>IQ tests prove that the average man is as intelligent as the average woman
Uhm, no. Women are concentrated in the average under the big bulge, meaning there are less total idiot women than men but also next to none outlier genius level women.

[Anonymous No.20949622]

>>20949570
Yeah but the difference in variance is not significant enough to explain the massive gender difference in chess. Let’s say there are twice as many 130 IQ men than women (it’s probably less I’m just granting you this), yet there are 99x as many men in top level chess than women.

[Anonymous No.20949642]

>>20949622
Chess is not a good indicator because is scales like every sport with training. Someone with average IQ heavily trained in chess could easily beat a untrained high IQ person in chess.

[Anonymous No.20949649]

>>20949642
Why are there so few women among the top 100 chess players?

[Anonymous No.20949654]

>>20949642
I’m taking about top level chess. Presumably they’re all high IQ (which is why, interestingly, they’re disproportionately Jewish).

[Anonymous No.20949682]

>>20949230
As opposed to fairy tales like democracy?

[Anonymous No.20949704]

>>20949196
Who are your favorite authors? Of course it is no good if you just haphazardly take the advice of random anons on what women are good, it will need to be tailored to the taste you have developed.
So, top 5, off the top of your head, favorite writers.

[Anonymous No.20949719]

>>20949649
Because chess is extremely fucking boring and is only considered cool by absolute dweebs who think it is a better measure of intelligence rather than autism, which it is actually a measure of.
>>20949642
This guy is right. Intelligence is necessary and helps, but the vast majority of chess expertise comes from endless, autistic repetition.
Women are less autistic than men. Hence fewer top level chess players.

[Anonymous No.20949725]

>>20949196

[Anonymous No.20949728]

>>20949196
Good writing comes from adversity. Modern women don't know adversity. At best, they create the worst possible situations for themselves and then blame the world; when it's your fault, what do you call it? Inversity?

[Anonymous No.20949756]

>>20949719
>Because chess is extremely fucking boring
Chess is beautiful. Stop being so closed-minded.

[Anonymous No.20949755]

>>20949537

>Dude there's so many good women chess players! Polgar, Botez, the list goes on!

[Anonymous No.20949759]

>>20949728
>Good writing comes from adversity.
Nope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jly4dXapR9c

[Anonymous No.20949774]

>>20949755
Notice how all of the female grandmasters in history are living. That means it is only in recent times that females have started getting into chess. From this it follows that the chess sex gap is not based in biology, since the biology hasn't changed and yet the gap has narrowed. Therefore it's social changes.

[Anonymous No.20949801]

>>20949759
Found the woman.

[Anonymous No.20949808]

>>20949755
Found the 1600 that watches YouTube all day

[Anonymous No.20949813]

>>20949649
This reminds me of a stat that Peterson (of all people) pulled out, apparently high IQ women tend to have both high verbal and mathematical IQ, whereas high IQ men just have mathematical. That's why there's less women in math, at least partly. They have choices, men don't. It's probably the same with chess.

[Anonymous No.20949820]

>>20949196
You keep saying "men" in your post as if there's a connection between the greatness of someone like Shakespeare and a common peasant just because they have the same sexual organs: Newsflash, there is not. Geniuses might as well be another species from the average person, regardless of their sex.

[Anonymous No.20949821]

>>20949704
NTA but Tim O'Brien, Melville, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Gogol

[Anonymous No.20949875]

>>20949196
Read "on the Iliad" by Rachel Bespaloff (PBUH) you disgusting animal

[Anonymous No.20949876]

>>20949808
Found the woman.

[Anonymous No.20950199]

>>20949196
>giving them a chance
When did this happen? Some of the oldest Greek poems were written by a woman. No one gives a fuck that your performative misogyny runs so deep you can’t enjoy things unless they were written by a big strong man (fag) but at least have some perspective and acknowledge that you don’t read that much and you don’t care about books, but about establishing how into dark academia you are

[Anonymous No.20951102]

*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.20951157]

>>20949756

The next time that you try to argue that chess isn't boring, you're going to have to post something other than the dullest, most banal miniature which is published in every third primer.

>dude le EPIC queen sacrifice xD

[Anonymous No.20951161]

Have sex.

[Anonymous No.20951162]

You're not Michael Collins, are you?

[Anonymous No.20951170]

>>20951162

The only Michael Collins who actually matters (the American astronaut) died recently. All other historical figures and average people named Michael Collins are irrelevant, hence your question is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.20951208]

>>20951157
It's popular because it's a very smooth-flowing, harmonious, pretty game, each move coming so naturally in the characteristic Morphy-style of preferring development over material. It's like watching a Mike Tyson knockout where he's dodging all of his opponents punches and punching back with perfect timing. It's also a relatively simple game; you don't have to dig deep into variations in order to understand it, so it's pleasant to watch. I don't see why you have a bug up your bum about this. You're clearly somewhat knowledgeable about chess since you know some nomenclature -- "miniature", for example. So why the hate?

Here is the best game I've played online. When I played this with my brother I was jumping around with joy because of the beauty of the moves, dancing even. How can a game which does that to someone be "boring"? Maybe you just don't understand the beauty of the game.

[Anonymous No.20951212]

>>20951157
It's popular because it's a very smooth-flowing, harmonious, pretty game, each move coming so naturally in the characteristic Morphy-style of preferring development over material. It's like watching a Mike Tyson knockout where he's dodging all of his opponents punches and punching back with perfect timing. It's also a relatively simple game; you don't have to dig deep into variations in order to understand it, so it's pleasant to watch. I don't see why you have a bug up your bum about this. You're clearly somewhat knowledgeable about chess since you know some nomenclature -- "miniature", for example. So why the hate?

Here is the best game I've played online. When I played this with my brother I was jumping around with joy because of the beauty of the moves, dancing even. How can a game which does that to someone be "boring"? Maybe you just don't understand the beauty of the game..

[Anonymous No.20951221]

>>20949196
>I'm
>I genuinely believe
>I get
>I end up
Well, I don't remember asking you?

[Anonymous No.20951252]

>>20951212

The opera game is AESTHETICALLY DULL, shut the FUCK up. You do not know what you are talking about.

Count and Duke: "Hey, let's play 3... Bg4, yeah, that'll show 'im!"
Morphy: *prepares straightforward attacks while activating all pieces*
Count and Duke: *plays poor Hope Chess*
Even the final position is indicative of how dull it was, with so much unmoved material. Did you just take up chess in the last year?

"One of my pet hates is the choice of games for beginners’ books. There are certain standard examples that tend to be repeated in book after book. In many beginners’ books, you will find the game Morphy vs Count Isouard and the Duke of Brunswick, played during a performance of the Paris Opera in 1858. It’s not an especially good game, as one might expect when the strongest player of his day confronts two duffers. Moreover, it has always seemed to me faintly incredible that authors couldn’t find a relevant example less than 140 years old." -John Nunn

[Anonymous No.20951273]

>>20949196
Camille Paglia, she channels Italian lesbian BPD energy into prescient critiques of popular feminism and liberalism in general.

[Anonymous No.20951680]

>>20951252
Its simplicity does not make it aesthetically dull. In fact it enhances its beauty. To continue the boxing analogy: Mike Tyson’s most beautiful fights aren’t against top-level elite opposition. They’re usually against mid-low level opponents who have no chance of becoming champions. That is when you are able to see the class and beauty of Tyson’s fighting style. The more complex fights are often boring and less harmonious and crisp.

This is an imperfect analogy, but it’s still valid. The noblemen Morphy faced we’re not elite opposition, but they made logical, reasonable moves for an amateur. They didn’t outright blunder any pieces. The fact that they were not elite allowed Morphy to showcase his class and create a beautiful game which is simple and easy to understand. It’s not the most impressive game of all time, nor even the most impressive game Morphy played, but it is one of the most beautiful and pleasant.

And no, I’ve been playing chess for 3 years, since I was 17.

[Anonymous No.20951725]

>>20949217
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20951767]

>>20949196
Marguerite Duras
Simone Weil
Virginia Woolf
Cristina Campo
Alejandra Pizarnik
Monique Wittig
Maria Zambrano
George Elliot

[Anonymous No.20951784]

>>20949756
Chess is meh. Go is the real deal.

[Anonymous No.20951864]

>>20949196
I like classy picture books, especially from the Golden Age of Illustrations, so there are a lot of female artists I like.

[Anonymous No.20951907]

>>20949217
>Agatha Christie too
I enjoyed what I read, but there is near zero merit in her writing. It's just light entertainment. One could argue a lesser writer would not have kept me glued to the books given the same setting, but I refuse to put these walls of "x said" anywhere near even the more mediocre writers in the Western canon.

[Anonymous No.20952058]

>>20951680

>Its simplicity does not make it aesthetically dull.

YES IT DOES, SO. Your central claim is false, your Tyson analogy is stupid, and at three years you're still a fish.

[Anonymous No.20952149]

IQ tests are irrelevant and have been edited to hell and back to accommodate women in order to avoid looking "sexist".
More telling is the fact that women have fewer neurons than men and that's why even "genius" women are mediocre compared to men.

[Anonymous No.20952278]

Then how do you explain this?

[Anonymous No.20952389]

>>20949196
As if you measure up to anything, you a bitch nigga with a pussy or without

[Anonymous No.20952462]

>>20952278

The OP seems to have been referring primarily to fiction. Other anons ITT have indicated that women have the capacity to do reasonably well in non-fiction, and I agree. I've read non-fictional historical treatises and (pretty much) non-pozzed academic articles written by women that I found informative and serviceable in terms of their style. I think this is where woman writers are at their best, as historical helpmeets to established subjects. I even suspect that they might occasionally turn out a decent piece of fiction (I seem to remember enjoying Silas Marner), but I don't have much experience on this point.

[Anonymous No.20952513]

>>20949196
have sex incel

[Anonymous No.20952541]

>>20949456
I’m reading Interview with the Vampire. It’s alright. Better than I thought it would be.

[Anonymous No.20952543]

I wish women lost all rights. Am I asking for too much?

[Anonymous No.20952553]

>>20949230
it's only a fairy tale if you're a leftist and an anarchist, which is a complete contradiction

[Anonymous No.20952557]

>>20949682
uh yes, anarchism is clearly worse

[Anonymous No.20952602]

>>20949756
it's fun to play but not watch, the golf of board games basically
if you want something fun to play and watch, get into monopoly

[Anonymous No.20952761]

>>20951212
Based fellow chess enjoyer. Favorite players? Mine are:
>Morphy
>Fischer
>Capablanca
>Steinitz
>Anderssen
I still have fond memories of playing with my Korean friend in high school. He was easily the best player besides myself in the school and we were so evenly matched every game was a nailbiter. So much fun. I even became the President of the Chess Club that we started, even though I had no idea how to run it (everyone just followed anime rules since I was presumably the best player). I was also the first person to beat our history teacher in a game, which the rest of the class thought made me a god.

[Anonymous No.20952766]

>>20951212
>>20952761
Oh and Magnus is great too. Interesting that he's refusing to defend his title.

[Anonymous No.20952769]

>>20949196
They produced every great man ever

[Anonymous No.20952776]

>>20951784
insectoid identified

[Anonymous No.20953073]

>>20952557
>>20949682
people who invented democracy are the ones who invented anarchism, their name starts with anglo and finishes with rats

[Anonymous No.20953081]

>>20951907
women love sex and crime stories, they dont care about quality, only about quanitty

[Anonymous No.20953099]

>>20952769
No. Men raised by single mothers are dysgenic fuck ups 99% of the time unless you mean they donated the womb which would still be barren without the father sowing it.

[Anonymous No.20953111]

>>20952149
and smaller brains

[Anonymous No.20953112]

>>20953073
this anglo meme has seriously gotta stop, you know you guys just sound like jews talking about whites, right? like it was funny the first few times but it's not funny anymore man give it a break

[Anonymous No.20953123]

>>20951864
>>20951767
Based

[Anonymous No.20953150]

Aside from the chess shit. This thread is alright.

[Anonymous No.20953172]

>>20949217
Agatha Christie had a male ghostwrite her books. Or rather, a man had her act as the author so he could make more money off female readers and not have to compete with other male authors. This is the case for 99 percent if not every female author of note

[Anonymous No.20953275]

>>20949682
Ah yes. Democracy. The system where women will definitely be happy to admit their opinions are wrong, once the vote comes in, regardless of affiliation. What a wonderful idea.

Let's have a vote on women's rights.

Oh no.

It didn't go the way she wanted?

I suppose our democracy has failed us, or the system was rigged. Maybe we should begin panicking and complaining in the streets about this.

Oh joy, I love this perfect system designed by women for women. Simply amazing.

But really, is there a system that can please women? Especially if it does what the woman asks? No one sabotages their own happiness quite like a woman.

U less we're comparing traditional women to fatherless rule breaker women. Those sorts know everything.

[Anonymous No.20953310]

>>20953112
Give me a button to exterminate all of you disgusting Anglo pigs and be assured that I slam that motherfucker through the table into the floor

[Anonymous No.20953341]

>>20953310
i'm mostly german, i don't like the britfags' unfunny memes either but come on stooping to their level just makes it a shit flinging contest

[Anonymous No.20954029]

>>20953310
Maisie actually looks cute here

[Anonymous No.20954053]

>>20949537
based

[Anonymous No.20954057]

>>20951767
these. also

Kathy Acker
Fleur Jaeggy
Anne Carson
Anna Kavan
Unica Zurn

[Anonymous No.20954084]

>>20949196
Emily Dickinson nigger

[Anonymous No.20954086]

>>20949801
Anyone subscribing to the "le suffering artisté" meme is more womanly than actual women.

[Anonymous No.20954125]

>>20949537
How come women compete in their own chess leagues though? This argument would only work if women were allowed to compete against men and still succeeded to the position of grandmaster.

[Anonymous No.20954126]

Haunting of Hill House is good but it gets blown out of the water by Hell House

I like ghost stories.

[Anonymous No.20954130]

>>20954125
Men don't really want women in their club, different leagues is really protection from autistic spergouts, and we should be thankful for it.

[Anonymous No.20954253]

>>20949196
>ask classmates what they're researching
>male classmates are all researching fascinating, unique, or at least ambitious things
>woman: "Misogyny in Rome"
>woman: "Misogyny and Hamlet"
>woman: "The intersection of misogyny and periods in Hamlet"
>woman: "Women"
>woman: "Opinions about women having sex in Weimar newspapers"
>woman: "Women in the work of Robert Musil"
>woman: "Vagina"
>woman: "I have a vagina"
>woman: "I'm a woman btw. Vagina here"
>woman: "Sex and periods in gender"
>woman: "Woman perceptions of woman, ,vagina, cooters breasts woman period I'm on my period clitorises in the work of the band Oingo Boingo and Hamlet's Perception of Clitoris Vagina Gender Studies"
>woman: "Queering Gender in Medieval Manuscripts: Your period or MY period?"
>woman: "Misogyny, Periods, and You: Ernst Cassirer on Substance, Function, and My Gay Love Affair with Gender Studies"
>woman: "Women in 'Woman's Work': Gendering Gender in the Social Sciences"
>woman: "Prostitution and Gender in Antebellum Calcutta"
>woman: "Gender"
>woman: "Sex and gender studies"
>woman: "Tampons, pads, and ironclads: Stonewall Jackson and Freebleeding"
>woman: "Einstein contra Bergson: Who rapes me more by having existed?"

[Anonymous No.20954288]

>>20954125
Because women in general are worse than men in general for a host of mostly sociological reasons. But Fischer’s quote doesn’t say that. It says ANY WOMAN and ALL WOMEN. He would beat ANY WOMAN with knight odds. That’s what it says. This would’ve applied in his time, but not nowadays with so many female grandmasters and international masters. (See: >>20949774)

[Anonymous No.20954319]

MENSA THREAD FULL OF MENSA RETARDS EH

[Anonymous No.20954335]

>>20954125
You're mistaken anon. Women don't compete in their own chess league. Women compete in women-only chess tournaments in addition to regular ones, and are sometimes awarded women-only titles but are still eligible for and earn normal titles. For example the title "Grandmaster" (GM) is independent of and distinct from "Woman Grandmaster" (WGM). Polgar competed against men and earned the GM title, same as Fisher. There are around 40 female GMs (of around 1300 total) and around 400 WGMs. (the WGM title has lower requirements).

[Anonymous No.20954340]

A3.

[Anonymous No.20954360]

Fullmetal Alchemist

[Anonymous No.20954373]

>>20949196
Women are creative and emotional. Not rational and logical like men. Women don't suck, they're built for different things. They make great genre fiction but anything more mundane or deeper into esoteric fields or philosophical is where they fall off. At a certain point you do need a man's mind. That doesn't duscredit how underesyimated women are creatively. It's this equality bullshit that furthers the divide between the sexes when in reality men and women need eachother to be complete.

[Anonymous No.20954388]

>>20954373
Chess is ultimately a skill over a talent. It becomes less about being smart and more about memory the higher the levels of competition. You can train those parts to great levels in either sex.

[Anonymous No.20954423]

>>20952769
>They produced every great man ever
And this is where their greatest creativity lies, whether they like it or not.

[Anonymous No.20954443]

>>20953172
sources? trust me bro

[Anonymous No.20954462]

>>20954360
Is the manga actually good?

[Anonymous No.20954532]

>>20954126
>horror schlock
Horror is one of the most embarrassing genreshit movements.

[Anonymous No.20954535]

>>20954360
Spoke too soon, weebshit is the most embarrasing of genreshit.
>>20954462
No, it's dumbass action trash like what you'd expect from shit aimed at teenage boys.

[Anonymous No.20954544]

>>20954373
>Women are creative
Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.20954555]

>>20954373
women dont create because they dont need to. women dont need to because they get men to create for them

Verification not required.

[Anonymous No.20954558]

>>20953172
Yeah because Agatha Christie was publishing in the era when feminists took over and marketed their books as written by women FOR WOMEN. Oh wait. That didn’t happen because she was writing in the 1920’s, the 1930’s, and the 1940’s lmfao

[Anonymous No.20954575]

>>20949196
I don't agree but I will agree most women held up by modern society are uniquely terrible writers, even worse than below-average male writers.
>>20949217
LeGuin is terrible. Trite political hot-takes from convention-goers of yesteryear dressed up in the sheepskin of fantasy.
>>20949230
Fairytales are fine. Leigh Brackett wrote some fine pulp.

[Anonymous No.20954782]

>>20952058
>>Its simplicity does not make it aesthetically dull.
>YES IT DOES, SO
to quote Terry Davis, "An idiot admires complexity for its complexity. A genius admirers simplicity..."

super theory-heavy chess games are really gay. Watch any championship with Magnus Carlson and the final games are like watching two computers strangle each other and then someone resigns because in 40 moves the board will reduce to queen + king vs king or something. Morphy games are at least fun to watch...

[Anonymous No.20955608]

>>20954782

>outs himself as a retard

Your only decent point is "elegance" versus "complexity for its own sake", but what you've missed this whole time is that the opera game is a PISS-POOR EXAMPLE of the former, because it's TOO simple. And, it's a meme. Among ancient miniatures, even the Immortal game has more going on.

[Anonymous No.20956601]

>>20954532
Shut up faggot nobody cares what you think

[Anonymous No.20956663]

>>20949196
try playing some chess and see how close to a woman you really are then. no point flexing with the achievements of others, maybe we should make gender meritocratic so all who dont excel in a male-type way are forcibly turned into females.

[Anonymous No.20956682]

frankenstein is still one of my favorite books

[Anonymous No.20956692]

>>20949196
I've often heard this meme of women having more "verbal IQ" or "emotional IQ" but where are the studies? How do they apply it in practice? Is it just cope?

[Anonymous No.20956908]

>>20954253
>>male classmates are all researching fascinating, unique, or at least ambitious things
Yeah, name them, maybe?

[Anonymous No.20956968]

>>20949196
Yes, women are inferior but you should not hate them for that. Women have a lot to offer, and not only sex.
"Men make houses, Women make homes".
>Most women are worthless
It is the same with men.
If you are a good man, the high quality women will come along.
I feel like both sides (incels and feminists/ femcels) hate femininity.

[Anonymous No.20956991]

>>20956692
I think they just pick up new languages way faster but only to a normal conversational level

[Anonymous No.20957052]

>>20952761
There is only one chess-player that matters

[Anonymous No.20957083]

>>20954535
lurk moar newfaggot

[Anonymous No.20957135]

>>20949196
It might be because when someone is a woman they are given undue prominence and often have things made up about them, achievements assigned that are not their own. Because women are so insecure and desperate and tasteless, they hold up these mediocre and bad examples which makes it seem like women are always mediocre or bad.

I don't think the experiment has run its course. There is still a significant social difference between men and women. And feminism's sisterhood for the entitled, lazy, and neurotic really doesn't help the women who are well put together. Or the women who are gender nonconforming. Because in feminism is a much deeper, regressive gender stereotyping than mainstream culture has had for a long time. And women matching up to men in some sense in reliant on moving past gender.

[Anonymous No.20957164]

>>20957135
>they hold up these mediocre and bad examples which makes it seem like women are always mediocre or bad.
Also, they put a lot more weight on an author or anyone just being a woman than men put on someone being a man. So they are only interested in praising and promoting women, but are also largely uncritical of them due to that.

[Anonymous No.20957180]

>>20949537
>Polgar's father was a psychologist who conducted an experiment on his own daughters to see if the gender gap in chess was indeed a product of "sex differences" or just socialisation. He taught them all to play chess from a young age. All of his daughters became great players, Polgar especially.
The moral of Polgar story is that even being a groomed child trained by grandmasters she was inferior to male players that started much later than her.

[Anonymous No.20957271]

>>20951273
>Camille Paglia
Stop shilling this disgusting pedo enabler, Jordan.

[Anonymous No.20957321]

>>20951273
>dude this old feminist hag is BASED because she criticizes CURRENT WAVE feminism for going TOO FAR

[Anonymous No.20957638]

>>20957083
Seethe, weeb. Your trash will never be good.

[Anonymous No.20958417]

>>20953172
/pol/ really is a brain rot.

[Anonymous No.20959397]

>>20957180
The moral of the Polgar story is that a woman is capable of becoming one of the best chess players in history. That's it. That's what they proved. It is a fact that Judit Polgar would beat you and all of your friends at the same time blindfolded. I know your fragile male ego can't take it but reality doesn't care about your feelings.

[Anonymous No.20959415]

>>20949196
Bobby Fischer was an extremely smart man, so of course women as a whole look stupid to him. Look up the "greater variability hypothesis" or "greater male variability hypothesis". Another thing to think about: for a moment, assume these three propositions are true:
>men have higher libidos than women
>men have higher variability than women
>women have an innate in-group preference (to other women) that men lack
Now think of any society you've ever known, within the last century, further back going millennia, pre-industrial, post-industrial, matriarchal tropical island tribes, whatever. Consider whether those three propositions explain what you see.

[Anonymous No.20959429]

>>20949537
The demographics of modern chess are about 4:1 male vs female, and modern players hone their chops online where they don't even know the sex of their opponents. In order to explain the difference in outcomes (difference in ELO ratings and number of grand masters), the ratio would have to be 200:1. A single woman being a top player does not impinge on this fact.

[Anonymous No.20959542]

>>20949537
You're right, women can compete at the highest levels of chess and provide a real challenge for the guys. If you need proof all you have to do is watch that famous match between Hou Yifan and Hikaru Nakamura.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2bh2Xs6X9M

[Anonymous No.20959562]

>>20949774
Tell me how many male GMs under the age of 20 there are, and how many female GMs under the age of 20 there are. Stop trying to argue from your conclusions.

>>20950199
>performative misogyny
Is this the new hot meme since "sexual objectification" has been dying in retard-relevance?

[Anonymous No.20959596]

>>20953310
>>20954029
Pic.

>>20952149
>IQ tests are irrelevant and have been edited to hell and back to accommodate women in order to avoid looking "sexist".
Wouldn't surprise me in the least but do you have some references for this?

[Anonymous No.20959674]

>>20957135
>And women matching up to men in some sense in reliant on moving past gender.
The tranny vs terf wars are my favorite modern spectacle.

[Anonymous No.20959686]

>>20959429
That is completely irrelevant to Fischer's quote which says ALL WOMEN. Do you understand how to read? I don't mean to get angry but it is incredible for you to do this motte-and-bailey tactic. Fischer says:
>ALL women are bad. I could give knight odds to ANY woman and beat her.
I say:
>That was true in his era, but now there are many female GMs whom Fischer could not beat (because any GM could beat even an engine if it gave him knight odds). Thus you cannot use the quote now because it has been refuted with time.
You say:
>No, because IN GENERAL women are worse than men at chess.
That has nothing to do with the question at hand. If I even find 1 example of a woman whom Fischer could not beat with knight odds, I have disproven his quote.

But ok, you'll probably say the question of ALL WOMEN isn't as interesting as the question of WOMEN IN GENERAL. So I should address the second question rather than the first. Fine, but don't act like you've refuted my point because you're addressing a completely different argument. Now, to the WOMEN IN GENERAL question:

>The demographics of modern chess are about 4:1 male vs female
This is wrong from a simple google search. FIDE states that 15% of active registered players are female. That's 1:6.7 female:male. There is only 1 female player ranked in the top 100 currently, Hou Yifan, so 1:99 top level competition. So, you conclude, that women must be biologically worse because their ratio in the top 100 is less than their ratio in chess in general.

But this argument is fallacious from the outset. "Active players" doesn't consider how much time someone spends playing or studying, if they have a coach, what age they started at, and how seriously they take the game. I'm signed up to ECF and considered an "active player" and yet I've only played 2 tournaments in my life.

What does point to a non-biological explanation for the sex gap is:
(1) the fact that IQ variance is not signficant enough to explain the gender disparity. Even if there are twice as many 130+ IQ men than women, the ratio of the top players should be 1:2 instead of 1:99.
(2) The fact that the number of female grandmasters has increased (see: >>20949774). There is no reason to think female biology changed in such a short amount of time, yet the number of female grandmasters has. This proves without a doubt that a large portion of the gender gap in chess is social rather than biological.

[Anonymous No.20961247]

>>20959686
>That is completely irrelevant to Fischer's quote which says ALL WOMEN.
Which is completely irrelevant to my post. Are you having a stroke?
>Do you understand how to read?
That's my line.
>But ok, you'll probably say the question of ALL WOMEN isn't as interesting as the question of WOMEN IN GENERAL.
Yeah, I am going to stick to what I said, not whatever schizo phantoms you're twisting your panties up over.
>That's 1:6.7 female:male.
Correcting 4:1 to 7:1 (or even 10:1) doesn't really change anything. Weird thing to latch onto.
>There is only 1 female player ranked in the top 100 currently, Hou Yifan, so 1:99 top level competition. So, you conclude, that women must be biologically worse because their ratio in the top 100 is less than their ratio in chess in general.
Actually, I wasn't looking at the absolute top, because that would be idiotic from a statistical standpoint. Which is obvious. Look at the number of males vs females who have received the title of GM since 2000. The ratio is about 36 to 1. Do you think that's an accurate representation of player proportions?
>(1) the fact that IQ variance is not signficant enough to explain the gender disparity.
Cool, I never said anything about IQ. There are enough gross structural differences that poorly trained neural networks can guess someone's sex with 93% accuracy just from a brain scan. Only blind faith in ideology would take this data and conclude men and women don't have substantial cognitive differences, whether they correlate with IQ or not.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00185/full
>This proves without a doubt that a large portion of the gender gap in chess is social rather than biological.
Firstly, no, all it suggests is that there are more female players now than in the past, which is totally consistent with FIDE stats. But if chess potential were the same across the sexes, you'd expect the proportion of female GMs to be somewhere close to the proportion of female players. It's quite far off of that. Or look at GMs who earned their title before the age of 22 since 2000, which further corrects for sociological effects since the ratio of male to female players is closest to parity the younger the demographic: it's 476 to 9 (and 143 to 2 for under 18). It is a really bizarre argument to chalk everything up to social effects in the internet age, unless of course you're arguing from your conclusions, in which case any stupidity goes. Then again, you're trying to explain differences in outcome with jezebel article-tier shit like:
>Rather, it has to do with male vs female temperaments. Chess is a very autistic, nerdy, asocial hobby. This appeals to nerdy introverted boys who find it hard to talk to girls and don't play sports etc..
Kek, you should be embarrassed of yourself.

[Anonymous No.20961322]

I don't read women, and know in all confidence that I'm not missing out on anything.

[Anonymous No.20962821]

Why are women completely retarded?

[Anonymous No.20963796]

>>20961247
>substantial cognitive differences
Again you are strawmanning. "Substantial cognitive differences" =/= "substantial cognitive differences in intelligence which are necessary and sufficient to explain the sex gap in chess". Nobody denies the existence of masculine and feminine character traits.

>Firstly, no, all it suggests is that there are more female players now than in the past, which is totally consistent with FIDE stats.
It suggests that the reason women were not into chess in Fischer's era was not because of BIOLOGY but because of social factors. The biology of women since Fischer's era has not changed, yet the chess participation rate, AND the chess achievement rate of women has increased. If it's not biology then it can only be social factors.

>you'd expect the proportion of female GMs to be somewhere close to the proportion of female players.
No you wouldn't because, again, FIDE classifies "active players" as anybody with membership who has played in a rated game within x amount of time. It doesn't mean the person started from a young age (an almost universal requirement for achieving grandmaster title), it doesn't mean the person takes the game seriously, it doesn't mean they study or have a coach. Percentage of "active players" means nothing.

>Kek, you should be embarrassed of yourself.
Yeah, clearly you know nothing about the psychology of most chess players. Maybe read a little bit about Fischer's life. He was a total outcast in his youth with no friends, spending the entirety of his free time totally absorbed in chess books and magazines, studying chess and playing against himself. This is the case for almost all great chess players, they waste their entire childhood on this game and by the time they're teenagers they become grandmasters and spend their entire lives thinking about it. (Look up somebody like Peter Leko, who regularly has dreams about chess where he's calculating obscure positions and coming to realisations even in his sleep). That's why all grandmasters can recite by memory 100s of obscure games, they literally destroy their social life and ambitions to do this. Women are more socially-oriented, so they're less inclined to sacrifice everything for this game.

[Anonymous No.20964034]

>>20949230
>>20954575
>All I took from Ursula LeGuin is that her politics are opposed to mine waaaaah
I think Africa should be atom-bombed and I love her books, get fucked.

[Anonymous No.20964048]

>>20964034
>n-noooo please don't insult muh trashy genre fiction for retarded teenagers
Nah, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.20964054]

>>20951907
Golden Age detective novels aren't *first and foremost* meant to be good literature per se, rather they're exercises for the mind wrapped in a cool context. You judge them first and foremost on the quality of the mystery. By that standard I think Agatha Christie's books really are pretty good. Plus, said context isn't all bad, her atmosphere and characters are pleasant and interesting, it's just her style that's mediocre and absolute lack of any thematicism/"message".
>>20953172
Interesting, I'm not surprised.

[Anonymous No.20964066]

>>20964048
I'm disputing it's trashy and for retarded teenagers, do you have a point? I doubt it's a coincidence the only things mentionned up until now have been her politics.

[Anonymous No.20964073]

>>20964066
The point is that you're an idiot with awful taste defending awful writers and if you kill yourself, the world would be a better place.

[Anonymous No.20964074]

>>20953172
Font? Comic sans.

[Anonymous No.20964085]

>>20964073
I bet you like Cormac McCarthy. She does the archaic tone better than him and it's his shitty trademark.

[Anonymous No.20964103]

>>20959397
>The moral of the Polgar story is that a woman is capable of becoming one of the best chess players in history. That's it.
No.
The moral of the story is >>20957180
You don't pull moral of the stories out of your ass.
Polgar was trained by grandmasters since being a child.
Fisher for example was a self educated and started as a teenager. Fisher was absolutely superior to Polgar and many others.
Polgar story precisely show the limits of conditioning and socialization.
Males were simply superior at chess.

[Anonymous No.20964117]

>>20964103
>Fisher for example was a self educated and started as a teenager.
Literally not true
Polgar also won against Kasparov who would’ve mopped the floor with Fischer
Spassky was an extraordinarily average world champion

[Anonymous No.20964118]

>>20949217
That's because nonfiction is easy, which is why I can't stand the plebs who refuse to read fiction.

[Anonymous No.20964122]

>>20949537
I take it you don't follow chess very closely. There's a reason they have a WGM title. Look at women's ratings compared to men. Polgar is the only woman in history to reach 2700.

[Anonymous No.20964266]

>>20964103
>Fisher for example was a self educated and started as a teenager
You know absolutely nothing about chess. Why even post about it? Every single grandmaster in history, with the exception of a few super-geniuses, started to play chess at an extremely young age. It's the only way to become a grandmaster unless you're like that one chinese grandmaster who somehow managed to make it despite starting at 17. If you started playing chess after 10 years old, there's basically no chance that you'll become a world champion. Fischer CERTAINLY did not start playing as a teenager.

The good thing about having a niche hobby like chess which is still relatively popular is you can see just how much bullshit people talk. You clearly have no knowledge of this subject whatsoever, yet you're so confident to draw conclusions. Retard.

Besides, your argument is utterly stupid, even without giving you this information. Polgar was in the top 10 in a very compettive era with Kasparov reigning. In that era was Karpov, Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik etc.. That makes her one of the best chess players in history. To achieve something like that is MONUMENTAL; but because she is not the absolute best you want to conclude that "women can't play chess". You are a retard.

[Anonymous No.20964276]

>>20964122
This retarded objection has been refuted numerous times already. Fischer talked about ALL WOMEN, so it's enough to find even 1 counter-example of a woman whom he could not beat with knight odds, whereas you are diverting the conversation to WOMEN IN GENERAL. These are not the same topics, retard. Here: >>20959686

[Anonymous No.20964430]

>>20949456
>Should I read Anne Rice, bros? There's a part of me that's vaguely curious.
I actually like female authors but holy fuck Anne Rice's shit is morally revolting

[Anonymous No.20965190]

>>20963796
>strawmanning
I suggest you read what strawmanning is and then reread my posts. Ironically, you are the one quite literally responding to statements I never made.
>It suggests that the reason women were not into chess in Fischer's era was not because of BIOLOGY but because of social factors.
At no point have I touched on the topic of why more men play chess than women (now or in the past), so I don't even know what you're on about. You are trying to drive a nebulous ideological point home that has nothing to do with anything I've said.
>yet the chess participation rate, AND the chess achievement rate of women has increased.
Yes, hand in hand, Thinkenstein.
>Percentage of "active players" means nothing.
And what is your alternative metric for analyzing the proportion of female players compared to male players? Answer this question. But I don't think you will, because you are indoctrinated. You cannot think; the ability has been programmed out of you. So even when provided evidence, you reject it, because you are arguing from the conclusions that have been indoctrinated into you. You are probably very young (early 20s at most) or very stupid. Or both, of course.
>Yeah, clearly you know nothing about the psychology of most chess players...Women are more socially-oriented, so they're less inclined to sacrifice everything for this game.
Interesting. So you are painting female GMs as being less dedicated to their pursuit than male GMs. If only they were as unbalanced and neurotic as Fischer, then they would perform proportional (or better!) to their participation rate. Is that good representation of your patronizing attitude to women? I'm sure you would deny it because you cannot see through to the conclusions of your ideological vomit.

The fact of the matter is, all empirical evidence suggests that women under-perform in chess relative to their participation rate in the game.
>it's because they're actually a way smaller percentage of players than any and all empirical evidence suggests
>and if it's not that, it's because they didn't start as early
>and if it's not that, then it's because they don't have the same training as men
>and if it's not that, it's because they're not trying as hard
>and it's good that they're not trying as hard, otherwise they'd all be weirdos like Bobby Fischer [as if he is in any way a representative example of top level players. Why not use Tal as an example instead? Because that doesn't suit your retarded non-arguments]
Grow up.

[Anonymous No.20965436]

>>20949654
Chess ability and IQ are not strongly correlated. None of them are sub-100, but there are midwits.

[Anonymous No.20966643]

>>20949196
Read Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.20966656]

Margaret Atwood.

[Anonymous No.20966917]

>>20964085
Yikes.
>propping up that worthless mediocre whore this hard

[Anonymous No.20966925]

>>20952513
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.20966938]

>>20949820
Tranny, kys

[Anonymous No.20966967]

>>20951767
>>20954057
Annie Dillard
Anne Carson
Sylvia Plath
Clarice Lispector

Dillard especially is a real favourite of mine.

Women are generally smarter than men. That's why almost none of them come to 4chan. They are the primary audience for books too, and constitute almost all living authors, because men don't read anything. If they did ever venture here and saw a thread like this about women authors, they certainly wouldn't engage in some autistic tangent about chess instead of the direct topic of women in literature.