|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2005 > Re: Braunlich's article, "Scholastics and the Soul of Chess" (OT)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Braunlich's article, "Scholastics and the Soul of Chess" (OT)
|
|
|
| michael adams wrote:
quote:
> Nick wrote (to Tim Hanke):
>
> How so Nicholas? - this truly is contentious.
'Michael Adams' has the right to believe that it's 'contentious'
for me to assert that 'it would be better for chess' *if* more
women and girls could be encouraged to participate in chess.
quote:
> I mean the absence of female geniuses (Germ. Greer for exam.)
> from the board of play,
Evidently, 'Michael Adams' has misunderstood or distorted what
I wrote. What Tim Hanke and I were discussing was the scarcity
of female chess-players at any level in chess clubs, *not*
'the absence of female geniuses' near the summit of chess.
quote:
> surely subtends a disinclination by this warrior-class to engage
> in 'male' deposition. Remember, the game was construed by 'spirits'
> to offset the weanling blood-crave of Indian princes, who I believe
> were 'exclusive'.
I have heard the argument that all women must be 'naturally' far less
interested and able in chess than men because the game's an abstract
representation of warfare. But that reductionist 'one size fits all'
hypothesis seems unconvincing.
--Nick
|
| |
|
|