Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!cca!rmc From: rmc@cca.UUCP (Mark Chilenskas) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: New Topic - Please Read Message-ID: <6614@cca.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 20:22:44 EST Article-I.D.: cca.6614 Posted: Wed Feb 1 20:22:44 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 04:46:08 EST References: stolaf.1341 Lines: 62 I think that this topic has been discussed a bit before, with the conclusion being that there probably were some statistical differences between women and men but that the variance between people was too large to be able to make use of the statistical differences. Now on to music and chess as specific cases. Saying that women are not / can not be competent musicians is just fantasy, pure and simple. There is an old saying that Piatagorsky played the cello as well as was humanly possible, then came Rostropovich, who plays better than humanly possible. It is unusual to find any area, especially of a creative field, so thoroughly dominated by one particular individual as cellists are by the technique of Rostropovich. But when he listens to other cellists, who does he like? Jacqueline Du Pre! (this info from an old interview i heard, probably on NPR, just after he moved to Washington DC). There are of course many other women who are world class musicians. Rosalyn Turek is gone, but where would modern harpsichord technique be without her? And then there is Martha Argereich (sigh, that looks mis-spelled), who set pianists on their ear with her interpretations of romantic music, especially Schuman. ET Swillich is a good enough composer to have won a Pulizer. Granted, you can not find as many noted women as noted men, but there are easier reasons to explain that than using some comments about femininity and agressiveness being mutually exclusive. In chess there are no women who have acheived the exhalted status of International Grandmaster. In fact, the disparity in play is so great between men and women that there are separate championships and grandmaster categories for men and women. Or is it the other way around? In the Soviet Union, where chess is a rather important political activity and their "equal treatment of women" is an important political edge, women and men do not train for international competition together. After a certain age (i think around 12), their training is segregated. But in chess, it is impossible to progress unless you play people as good or better than yourself. Thus, unless women are competing in major international events they will not become as strong as the men who compete together. However, as usual, there is hope. Pia Cramling (i think of Sweden) has been playing in the full olympics and one of the recent US candidates for Women's World Champion (sigh, don't have my chess library here and her name slips my mind. Rachel someone, but Rachel Carson is a scientist.) is now a men's International Master and working on breaking into major tournaments. Now chess is an activity where aggression helps if ever there was such an activity. And yet even though the championship cycle is segregated, even though an unrated woman international player must start with a rating 200 points lower than an unrated man, there are still some fine games being played by women and some are breaking into the men's tourneys. This is despite the curves organized chess has thrown them. Give your friend some cases, and let him explain them away. As long as you stay in completely abstract discussions, each side can prove anything they want. It is only when you test your hypotheses in real world cases that you can get anywhere. R Mark Chilenskas Chilenskas @ CCA-VMS decvax!cca!rmc