Didn't have much time to focus on this one from San Diego, especially with Linares going too. Most of the favorites and big names were tossed out of this knock-out in Ekaterinburg, Russia, in the first two rounds. (ChessBase has assorted reports.) The mighty Chinese contingent was reduced to just one in round three, Xu Yuhua. The home team is doing very well despite the elimination of young hope Tatiana Kosintseva. Although the rise of the Chinese and Indian teams (men's and women's) has been impressive, the final eight in Ekaterinburg has a decidedly vintage feel with three Russians and two Georgians, including the indominable former title holder Maia Chiburdanidze. The veteran went to blitz against the 15-year-old Wenjun Ju in the third round.
Of course this is FIDE KO lottery style, so there's no point in making sweeping conclusions. Koneru, Kosteniuk, and defending champ Stefanova left early. The women's title, as with the FIDE title under the KO regime, isn't much about the chess or the hierarchy of the winner. The new women's champion will do a lot of good PR and garner a few good invitations. The Corus B group and Essent are usually locks.
Three years ago I pointed out that Judit Polgar had played one classical game against another woman in ten years. Unless memory fails, that can be updated to 13 years. Her path is hard to compare because she was too strong for women's events at a very young age. Still, the young Kosintseva sisters play at least half their games in women-only events, facing fellow 2400s instead of 2600s. (Although they are practically over the hill at 20-21.) Katerina Lahno seems to be trying to break this tradition, eschewing most gender-segregated events.
Part of my dislike for women-only events is a selfish desire to test the other side of the chicken-egg argument, or at least one part of it. We don't have nearly enough information on whether genetics or upbringing have an effect on women's chess abilities and we won't have such information for generations, if ever. Not that this lack of data has stopped us from discussing it to death. But the theory that women play worse because they spend many key years playing weaker opposition is readily testable. However, the point may already be moot by the time they are professionals.
I haven't had a problem with girls' events because they avoid the hostile minority environment of a traditionally boys' game. (It was no surprise to see that just about every player in the US Championship learned from his/her father.) All-girl events are great, perhaps essential, encouragement. But due to the much smaller pool of girl players and a standard bell curve talent distribution, this means girls are playing weaker competition right from the start. Dilemma.
Do women blame their coaches when dropping out a tournament like this? Or bad luck? Or themselves? Or their opponents? Or their Federations? Or husbands, if got any? What is the excuse?
"Women are weakies, I can give any woman in the world knight odds and beat them."
(c) 1962 Bobby Fischer.
Bobby's statement was pretty ridiculous even back in 1962. Nona was already then a player of strong IM or even GM level. She was absolutely dominating among women and her results in competitions with men were quite good too. For example, she won Hastings Challengers tournament 1963/64 scoring 6.5/9 and next year scored 5/9 in main tournament. She showed her class also at Gothenburg 1967 (6/9; 3rd place behind Efim Geller and Rolf Martens), Gori 1968 (6/10; tied 4th place with Eduard Gufeld, behind Tal, Geller and Bukhuti Gurgenidze), Dortmund 1974 (8/11; tied 3rd place with Mato Damjanovic, behind Laszlo Szabo and Victor Ciocaltea), Sandomierz open 1976 (7.5/11; tied 2nd place with Rainer Knaak, behind David Bronstein), Lone Pine 1977 (6.5/9; tied 1st place with Yuri Balashov, Oscar Panno and Dragutin Sahovic) or Dortmund 1978 (7.5/11; tied 2nd place with Ray Keene, behind Ulf Andersson).
I don't think that Bobby could beat this lady giving her Knight odds.
Nona also won the tournament at Reggio Emilia 1982/83 scoring 8/11 ahead of Karel Mokry, Georg Danner and Mario Bertok and tied for the 1st place (7/11) in B-tournament at Wijk aan Zee in 1987 (with Ivan Farago and Luc Winants, ahead of Ian Rogers, William Watson and Jeroen Piket). In 1985 she tied for the 2nd place (behind Leonid Yudasin) with Krum Georgiev and Atanas Kurtenkov at Albena with score 7.5/13.
PMT
http://www.100words.net/entry/read_member_batch.cfm?entry_member=duck&entry_batch=September&entry_year=2002
3. “The situation in women’s chess is dramatically improving. Remember, 40 years ago, Fischer said proudly, ‘I could give knight odds (an extra knight!) to any female player.’ Today I wonder whether I could prudently give a pawn. The gap is closing. But a pawn is still a long way to go. I don’t think it will ever be equal, but it’ll be close.” – Garry Kasparov
Milunka Lazarevich, a top Yugoslav female player:
"No one asks me why I play better than 19 million Yugoslavs but only why I play weaker than some 100 (male) Yugoslavs."
"Great skill at chess," an editorial in The New York Clipper once noted, "is not a mark of greatness of intellect but of great intellect gone wrong."
Women, for whatever reasons, have not truly attained an equal footing with the male players. Madame Chaud de Silans, one of the better female players, had this contemptuous remark on why her own sex didn't do better: "Women can't play chess because you have to keep quiet for five hours."
http://www.jewsinsports.org/Publication.asp?titleID=4¤t_page=6
Sure, there are amny more strong male players than there are strong female players.
The reason is quite obvious: many more male players play the game.
That's exactly the same reason that there are many more strong Russian players than American players.
Now, why is it that there are so few females playing the game? Because women are less interested in competitions than men are.
The game of chess attracts many people, but very few stick with it beyond the occasional informal game. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it will be in the future.
That Kasparov-quote must have been a bow to Judit Polgar.
You don't seriously believe that Kasparov (or Topalov, Anand, Morozevich, Svidler, for that matter) wouldn't be able to win a game a pawn down against someone rated 300+ points lower than themselves?
I remember someone attempting to find out the "real" piece value by examining MegaBase, stripped of all players rated lower than 2500 (I believe). He then looked at how certain material imbalances and deficits scored. By that, he was also able to "estimate" an Elo-worth of a pawn.
If I'm not mistaken, that was somewhere in the lower 100-200ELO area.
So, Topalov, as reigning FIDE World Champion could currently give something like two pawn odds to Stefanova as (still) reigning FIDE Women World Champion and more or less likely escape with a draw.
One way to attempt to find out whether it's really that women play weaker because they face weaker opposition in other women rather then men would be to look whether there are countries in which women-only tournaments are not very common. If the rating difference in those countries relative to their men's strenght is less than in the world overall, it should make a point. Probably too small a sample to be statistically relevant but it might be a (strong?) hint.
greets, AA
The average man is stronger than the average woman, but there is great variation, and there are many women who could beat every man who posts here into a bloody pulp. Likewise, while you may find the average USCF rating of women to be lower than the average male rating, any of the Polgar sisters can defeat 99.9% of the male posters here - with pawn odds.
Now when you compare elite male athletes vs elite female athletes, the natural male structure completely dominates, and you will not likely see a woman play in any major league team (at least not in a serious manner). However, Judit has ascended to the highest levels of chess, and there are other women not too far behind. While it is obvious to point to inherent differences in physical ability between men and women, claiming there is an inherent difference between the sexes in chess isn't so clear cut and the current disparity can more likely be attributed to interest. Chess is historically a man's game, and perhaps always will be, but it would be foolish to claim that makes men inherently better at it.
What sort of bow is that??? He is thinking about whether he could give a pawn to a 2730 player ??! That is most disrespectful.
DP,
Gary expressed his thoughts about female chess players some years back in an interview. Another reason why I'm not a fan of his. The 2730 player wasn't rated any where near that at the time and I wonder if he would make that same remark today?
As I just recently expressed in another blog, if we men think this way at the amateur level, were in for some deserved unpleasant experiences.
I once personally heard Kasparov voice his views about women's chess potential. In a 1990 appearance at Harvard, I heard him say something like, "A computer will beat me before a woman will." (I think this was in response to a question from the audience.)
Well, he was proven correct -- but not, I think, in quite the way he wanted. He eventually did lose a match to a computer, and it's one of the last things he may be remembered for. And he avoided losing a game to a woman (Judit Polgar) only by cheating on camera (touching a piece and then moving a different piece).
Kasparov should not be judged by what he said or did outside the chessboard. After all, he is not, and has never pretended to be, anything other than a brilliant chess player, with all the virtues and defects of those who excel at this difficult game.
He was (is) a genius among geniuses in chess. As good and as talented as any other player in history. Did he cheat against Polgar? Yes, he cheated. So what?
Did he say stupid things about history, women and politics? Yes. He has proven quite below average for things other than chess. He has failed at everything he tried outside the 64 squares.
So what?
Let's take Kasparov the man with a rock of salt, while being grateful to have had Kasparov the chess player in our lifetime.
Imagine how dreadful the chess world would have been with Anand as #1 for the past 15 years?
There must be many other Kasparovs' out there, waiting to come out of Baku, or whereever. I read thirty years ago, that there were many more talented and better than Gary, but for some reason he was sent out to conquer the world, which he did. Forgot the story already. What are the Chinese doing? Any Chinese with an english or french chess blog?
Hey Jon, didn't Judith beat Kasparov somewhere? From the Judit-Princess of Chess book.
>>All-girl events are great, perhaps essential, encouragement. But due to the much smaller pool of girl players and a standard bell curve talent distribution, this means girls are playing weaker competition right from the start. Dilemma.
I wonder if the Internet is going to change (or at least mitigate) that. It's certainly a lot easier to just hop on ICC or Playchess for serious practice, though I don't know how many GMs or super-GMs are going to be created from playing G/3 games. It seems to be that private coaching + Internet play + some OTB play could provide a decent mix of strong opposition and reasonable social conditions.
Judit beat Garry back in '02: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1254283&kpage=1
Is it stupid to ask Kasparov if he could beat Fritz or Hydra with the comp giving odds a pawn? I try with Fritz 9, who gives me odds a piece, and I always lose, except once when he repeated three times in the opning and made draw.
Garry Kasparov (pronounced: Kas-PAH-rof) was born in 1963 in Baku, Azerbaijan. In 1980 he was the world junior champion, in 1981 the Soviet champion, and in 1985, at the age of 22, the youngest ever world chess champion, after defeating Anatoly Karpov. He has now been the top chess player in the world for 14 years and there are no signs of his winning streak stopping anytime soon.
Garry Kasparov is one of the best things that has happened for chess. His creativity, his flare, his imagination are evident in every game he plays. He has inspired countless chess players to become better and open up their minds to the incredible opportunities that chess provides. His efforts in the political and organizational realms will have a lasting positive effect for generations to come. Kasparov is truly one of the great figures of our era.
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/symposia/kasparov.html
By the way, how does one pronounce "Cmilyte"? Is it
(a) Tsmi-LIH-tye
(b) Tshmi-LIH-tye
(c) TSMEE-li-tye
(d) TSHMEE-li-tye
(e) Something else?
p>
tgg,
Regarding Kasparov and his chess accomplishments OTB, I am in total agreement with you (still not a fan though). As far as. "Kasparov should not be judged by what he said or did outside the chessboard." Wow! We are world's apart on that one.
On the other hand, anything that I have said or will say in the future on this blog should not be used to judge me because it does not pertain to the medical field. Poor Mig?! By the way, I like Anand!
Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough, Chesstraveler: I'm NOT defending Kasparov. All I wanted to stress is that for matters other than chess (his "theories" on politics, history, women, etc.), Kasparov's opinion should not be given much weight.
That's all.
(I'm not a big fan, either, but can't deny the man is clearly the strongest, best player ever. Credit where credit is due - without that, all criticsm is fraudulent.)
Thanks tgg for taking the time to clarify your opinion, I still can't share in the logic though. Nothing personal
No idea how Cmilyite is pronounced. Too bad her husband left her for some tournament. What is this marriage strategy? Money again. Conclusion: women should marry women, not men.
Do you guys know if it's true that 99% of the chess women can't stand each other, privately?
http://www.randomhouse.com/special/puzzles/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780812936537
March 2005
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Susan Polgar is the current World Champion in Women's Chess and the top ranked woman chess player in the United States.
Is this info correct or just another Internet scam?
It's hard to say what is correct with Susan and what is not. I will give her this: she is good at promoting herself to the non-chess playing world, even though it's a bit deceptive.
It's like calling the World's U-10 champ the "World Champion."
It's hard to say what is correct with Susan and what is not. I will give her this: she is good at promoting herself to the non-chess playing world, even though it's a bit deceptive.
It's like calling the World's U-10 champ the "World Champion."
Re. Cmilyte surname pronunciation, judging from the Cyrillic spelling (Чмилите) at chesspro.ru, I guess Chmeal-ea-teh (no idea where the accent falls.
Susan Polgar is not the current womens world champion. Until the tournament that is currently being played is decided Stefanova is the current womens champion. I do not understand why Polgar promotes herself in ways that are untrue or how she even gets away with it.
I am sorry to disappoint you but I did not write that. That was written by some media personnel and I have never seen it until now. I have never claimed that I am still the reigning Women's World Champion. I have stated that dozens of time on my own blog site and in many articles. I do not believe I have ever misrepresented myself on purpose. Sometimes, due to language problems, things may sound strange to some people and I always correct any known mistake.
For example, I used to put 4-time Women's World Champion. It was pointed out to me that in English, the correct way to say it is Winner of 4 Women's World Championships since I won 4 different types of World Championships. I changed it immediately. Why don't any of you try to write thousands of articles in Hungarian and see how well you do.
I don't understand why do people always assume the worst or become so unfriendly? I am more accessible than perhaps 99% of all GMs. People write me daily from all over the world. I have a number of my own websites and blog sites for the public. The next time you see an error from me, why don't you ask me or point it out to me personally. My e-mail is SusanPolgar@aol.com. It is known to the public for years. You have a case if you point out to me the mistakes and I refuse to fix them.
How many times media people mix things up because they are unfamiliar with chess? How many papers still put Kasparov is still the reigning World Champion? Some people think that I am a WGM because I am a woman. That is an insult personally but I don't go around attacking these papers. There is no way any of us can verify everything from everyone. Even Mig makes a number of mistakes but he always corrects them when someone points them out to him. Why be so hostile?
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
www.PolgarGirls.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
"Why be so hostile?"
--Since you asked, Susan, might I suggest that some folks are responding to what they see as hostility in your own writing.
In another thread I read your words:
"I am glad you and a few other people seem to think that you know more than I do. That is fine. Some people still do believe that the earth is flat. That is their right and I am not going to waste time arguing about it."
Anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is as ignorant as a flat-earther? It's a waste of time for you to discuss the issue with them?
Hostility?
And you're probably not winning many friends with the sarcastic tone which opens a number of your posts....
"I am sorry to disappoint you but I did not write that."
"I am glad you and a few other people seem to think..."
And then there's this:
"Why don't any of you try to write thousands of articles in Hungarian and see how well you do."
--When I do write a book in Hungarian I will review the publisher's promotional material before it goes out and will not attempt to evade responsibility for any errors.
Mr. Foster,
When chess professionals don't interact with the fans, they are charged with being arrogant and self-centered. When chess professionals try to reach out, they are abused and attacked all the time for speaking out. Did I publish anything so egregious to deserve some of the postings above?
When I responded to John, it was meant does he believe he knows more about that specific matter than me? I attended about a dozen meetings and I got the information first hand. That was what I meant. I has nothing to do with other matters in general.
Damn if you do and damn if you don't. If you don't like how I write, that is fine. I can accept that. English is one of the 7 languages I speak. But it's not my native tongue. I have to translate in my head from Hungarian to English. I will never be able to write like Soltis or Silman, etc.
My problem is when people purposely attack chess professionals for no reason whatsoever. What does it have to do with me if some media person get the facts incorrectly? Do you feel that the postings above are appropriate, especially coming from anonymous sources?
If you wish, I can stop posting on chessninja. It's unbelievable that some of us have malicious attacks and insults for something so trivial like this. I hope you do not speak to your girlfriend/wife/daughter like this. I only ask for the same basic respect and courtesy.
Have a good day.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
This sort of error is made in the media all the time. Jen Shahade, for example, the former US Women's champion, was sometimes referred to not only as "the US Women's Champion" durng the promotion for her book--she's even been referred to as "the US Champion." All errors made by other people speaking about her, not by Jen herself.
I'm sure we've all seen masters referred to as grandmasters and vice versa. And then of course there is the issue of the time when something was written vs the time when it is published.
When a mistake is made, it should be corrected. But given that Susan Polgar did indeed hold the title of "Women's World Champion" at one point, and that the error occurred in information about a book that she had written rather than the book itself, this doesn't seem to me any different than someone referring to Garry Kasparov as "world champion" in a press report.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/08/content_528295.htm
Acknowledge it, correct it, move on. There are much more serious things to spend energy on.
Sincerely,
Duif
Duif's point is totally correct. The media gets these titles wrong all the time. I think it's generally agreed that any of the "real" world champions are kinda like the President - you still call Clinton "Mr. President" and it's totally okay. Maybe you think I couldn't compare Polgar to Bill Clinton. I've successfully done so.
Susan, feel free to pick whichever President you want to be. Don't let my silly comparisons constrain you in these matters.
So I don't think Susan's done anything wrong there - I've given up explaining to people that I'm only an expert when they ask, "Are you a master?". Master I'll agree to, if they want to ask me if I'm a GM, then I'll say "Just master". Anyone who can think 2 moves ahead is a master to these people anyway.
There is no point in attacking Susan Polgar if some people describe her incorrectly. These days, especially in US, many scammers present themselves with false advertisements. Correspondence chess grandmaster, many years experience in coaching, teacher of US Champions bla, bla. When they call Jude Acers a chess master in a place, I don't have any problem calling a +2500 woman player a World Champion. Let's talk about the non qualified people that wants to make money out of chess, not the people that deserve praise for their effort.
A chess professional isn't obliged to correct media folk who mix up titles. But an author who expects the public to buy her book might also have an obligation to the public to check for accuracy in the advertising that her own publisher puts out about her book. You may disagree.
Ms. Polgar, you were insulted that certain media inaccurately diminished your accomplishments by referring to you as a WGM. You should thus understand that there are folks out there who are similarly upset when your accomplishments are inaccurately exaggerated by your publisher. (I do prefer reading advertising that is truthful, but no, I'm not upset.)
And, finally,
--I agree with those above who feel that too much has been made of the exaggeration of Ms. Polgar's accomplishments by her publisher.
--Ms. Polgar has published "thousands of articles" in English. Her difficulties in translating ideas from Hungarian to English might thus be a tad overstated.
--An objective reader looking through these posts might find that there as as much hostility coming from Ms. Polgar as there is directed at her.
Mr. Foster,
As John Fernandez has pointed out before, some people do believe that a President should always be addressed as Mr. President. Some people believe that a World Champion should always be addressed as World Champion (but not as the reigning World Champion).
I do not particularly care if people address me as former Women's World Champion or Women's World Champion. I always make it clear that I am not a reigning Women's World Champion. I have done my part to ensure correct information is given. But I am sure some people will always find things to attack.
No, I do not have difficulties writing in English in general. I can express my views most of the time but with grammatical errors. The problems come from translating unusual words or phrases. It may sound funny to Americans and sometimes it even causes misunderstanding.
Yes, one would tend to be hostile once in a while when one has to face this kind of baseless and unfair anonymous attacks all the time. If people love chess so much, I would expect them to spend more time doing positive things instead of rudely complaining about every little point. Fortunately, there are very few people who behave this way.
I hope you are satisfied with my response because I need to move on and do other things. Thanks for your understanding.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
Ms. Polgar,
I don't see that you're facing "baseless and unfair anonymous attacks all the time."
John's comments about the Anna Hahn situation had a basis in his knowledge, they were fairly stated, and they were not anonymous. He wasn't attacking you. He even ended up praising you in another thread.
Re the comments of the anonymous posters:
--Is this info correct, or just another internet scam? (Not a personal attack, just an attack on the info source. A tad harsh, but then we're all quite tired of misleading advertising.)
--she is good at promoting herself. (true)
--it's a bit deceptive. (true)
--It's like calling the Women's U-10 champ the World Champion. (true)
--I do not understand why Polgar promotes herself in ways that are untrue or how she even gets away with it. (Maybe the poster can be forgiven for assuming that Ms. Polgar had approved the misleading advertising on her book. But now he knows that the exaggeration was simply a mistake.)
Thank you, Ms. Polgar, for having taken the time to address these matters, large and small.
This is not accurate according to normal English as it does not specify 'women' in ranking.
Also, #2 is not correct for world ranking, using the normal criterion of the FIDE active list (Susan immediately called herself #1 when Judit was temporarily inactive).
"Currently ranked #1 in the United States and #2 in the world."
Greg Koster,
Did you miss out on a large class prize by losing to a woman? Trying to find the source of your obsession with Susan...
poor Mig,
who has to pay for harddisk storage space and server bandwidth just to see it used up by such bull as Greg and our "Guest" are writing. One of the times where you realize that free speech isn't for free at all...
Maybe you guys could polish your fingernails instead or do something likewise useful?
Anyone who loudly promotes his or her own accomplishments along with his or her cause becomes a target. It looks suspicious: are the accomplishments promoting the cause, or is the cause being used to add to accomplisments?.
The cause may be commendable, but it appears to be a tool for narcissism, with exaggeration and ego involved.
... and which of the both would be despicable?
As you probably don't get much (needed) media attention if you are the guy next door organizing a girls chess tourney (or whatever other cause), promoting your cause via stating your accomplishments seems the only way media wants it.
And since getting that girls chess tourney going is indeed an accomplishment, the cause (increasing enthusiasm for chess in girls) adds to your accomplishments.
Which was first - egg or hen?
as for "it appears to be a tool for narcissisisiisiismm..." - there is a saying in german: Only what I would do and think myself I wouldn't put past others...
"Albrecht von der Lieth":
Stating your accomplishments is fine, the issue is stating them wrongly.
Susan is not #1 chess player in the US nor #2 in the world. Describing herself like that in English, if not in German, is wrong.
That you think it is OK, that is interesting ..
funny,
fide.com has her having played last in the Olympiad in 2004 with a score of 10.5 out of 14 games against a field of 2435ELO average. That comes to a new ELO of 2577 as of January 2005. That makes her #2 woman in the world and #1 woman in the US.
What's your point?
funny,
fide.com has her having played last in the Olympiad in 2004 with a score of 10.5 out of 14 games against a field of 2435ELO average. That comes to a new ELO of 2577 as of January 2005. That makes her #2 woman in the world and #1 woman in the US.
What's your point?
Susan (Zsuzsa) is listed as the top ranked female in the US on the USCF list with a rating of 2557, there is one rated above her on that list but is not eligible because she is not an American citizen. She has an FIDE rating of 2577 which would put her above
Koneru at 2537 but Susan is inactive it appears in FIDE tournaments.
Susan (Zsuzsa) is listed as the top ranked female in the US on the USCF list with a rating of 2557, there is one rated above her on that list but is not eligible because she is not an American citizen. She has an FIDE rating of 2577 which would put her above
Koneru at 2537 but Susan is inactive it appears in FIDE tournaments.
Albrecht v.d.,
This is all too difficult for you. Susan does not state 'woman'. In English, this implies #1 player male or female.
Susan is not listed as #2 in the world by FIDE:
Top 50 Women January 2006
Rank Name Title Country Rating Games B-Year
1 Polgar, Judit g HUN 2711 14 1976
2 Koneru, Humpy g IND 2537 29 1987
3 Cramling, Pia g SWE 2515 13 1963
4 Kosteniuk, Alexandra g RUS 2514 9 1984
5 Chiburdanidze, Maia g GEO 2511 0 1961
6 Xu, Yuhua wg CHN 2502 0 1976
7 Lahno, Kateryna m UKR 2500 7 1989
8 Stefanova, Antoaneta g BUL 2499 14 1979
9 Zhu, Chen g CHN 2482 10 1976
10 Kosintseva, Nadezhda m RUS 2480 6 1985
Presumably due to inactivity. When Judit went inactive for a year, Susan was quick to list herself as #1 in the world.
SUSAN POLGAR IS CURRENTLY THE #1 RANKED WOMAN PLAYER IN THE UNITED STATES!" (www.SusanPolgar.com)
Winner of 4 Women’s World Chess Championships and 10 Olympic Medals (5 Gold, 4 Silver and 1 Bronze). #1 ranked woman player in the US and #2 in the world. (www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com)
The above are listed on the main page of my website and blogsite. I fail to understand your point. Please feel free to check them out for yourself.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
Yes, Susan, you have now correctly changed it to be more accurate. 3 days ago that little extra word 'woman' was not there.
Plus, you do not address the question of why you declared yourself #1 in the world (woman) when Judit went temporarily inactive.
Hello, Mrs. Polgar
You list 3 Chess Oscars in your resume:
http://susanpolgar.com/polgarchess/achievements_polgar.pdf
However, you don't appear in the list kept by FIDE:
http://oscar.fide.com/history.asp
Is there another list of Oscar winners? Perhpas there is more than one winner?
Please, clarify.
Thanks!
GM Susan Polgar is indeed the #2 rated woman in the world as shown on the FIDE website. Go to the following link. Leave all the choices blank except choose FEMALE as the gender. Sort in descending rating order. She is #2 below Judit:
http://www.fide.com/ratings/advseek.phtml
She doesn't show up on the Top 50 list because that is confined to active players only. But "once rated, always rated"--inactivity does not remove a player from the FIDE database. Only from the "Top" lists, which are limited to active players. If she had said "#2 on FIDE's Top 50 Women list," that would be inaccurate. But she didn't. It's easy to get confused about this, but what her website says is correct.
With regard to the other issue..that's an issue of context, and it's one of those minor ambiguities that a good editor might fix, but that is common among writers regardless of their first language.
The page reads:
"#1 ranked woman chessplayer in the world at the age of 15 (Ranked in the top 3 in the world for 20 straight years).
Currently ranked #1 in the US."
Notice that that second sentence is absolutely dependent on the first for meaning.
It does NOT say "#1 chessplayer in the US."
It just says "#1." So--#1 what? #1 knitter? #1 PTA mom? #1 ballet fan?
The only way linguistically to put "chessplayer" into that second sentence is to look back at the previous sentence. And when you look back at the previous sentence, you are talking about ranking as "woman chessplayer." She was the #1 woman chessplayer in the world at the age of 15. Now she is the #1 [woman chessplayer] in the US.
http://www.fide.com/ratings/topl.phtml?code=700088
Now, as to how people will interpret it...if your own brain automatically inserted "chessplayer" rather than "woman chessplayer" into the second sentence, OK. That's going to be an error that might be made on the part of the reader. So, again, a good editor would suggest adding the descriptive text to the second sentence as well, for clarity.
But it actually is an error on the part of the reader, not the part of the writer. You'd lose points on a standard reading comprehension test for that interpretation.
Since the "#1" has NO descriptive text with it, you have to go back to the previous sentence. And there, "woman" is an essential modifier to "chessplayer."
As I mentioned, otherwise you could argue it was the #1 strawberry shortcake maker. The meaning is dependent on the previous sentence.
As an editor or publicist, I would recommend changing the second sentence, just because reporters so often skim stuff in a hurry. You often have to sacrifice a bit of stylistic flow to make sure every sentence can be correctly quoted, even out of context.
But that would be advice, not an absolute requirement. The sentence appears in context. It has no meaning without the context. It is unfortunate that some readers will miss the context, and it would probably be a good idea to change it for that reason.
Respectfully,
Duif
GM Susan Polgar is indeed the #2 rated woman in the world as shown on the FIDE website. Go to the following link. Leave all the choices blank except choose FEMALE as the gender. Sort in descending rating order. She is #2 below Judit:
http://www.fide.com/ratings/advseek.phtml
She doesn't show up on the Top 50 list because that is confined to active players only. But "once rated, always rated"--inactivity does not remove a player from the FIDE database. Only from the "Top" lists, which are limited to active players. If she had said "#2 on FIDE's Top 50 Women list," that would be inaccurate. But she didn't. It's easy to get confused about this, but what her website says is correct.
With regard to the other issue..that's an issue of context, and it's one of those minor ambiguities that a good editor might fix, but that is common among writers regardless of their first language.
The page reads:
"#1 ranked woman chessplayer in the world at the age of 15 (Ranked in the top 3 in the world for 20 straight years).
Currently ranked #1 in the US."
Notice that that second sentence is absolutely dependent on the first for meaning.
It does NOT say "#1 chessplayer in the US."
It just says "#1." So--#1 what? #1 knitter? #1 PTA mom? #1 ballet fan?
The only way linguistically to put "chessplayer" into that second sentence is to look back at the previous sentence. And when you look back at the previous sentence, you are talking about ranking as "woman chessplayer." She was the #1 woman chessplayer in the world at the age of 15. Now she is the #1 [woman chessplayer] in the US. You can check her national ranking on her FIDE card at the FIDE site, and you will see that she is indeed listed as the #1 female player in the US (they don't count activity for that report).
Now, as to how people will interpret it...if your own brain automatically inserted "chessplayer" rather than "woman chessplayer" into the second sentence, OK. That's going to be an error that might be made on the part of the reader. So, again, a good editor would suggest adding the descriptive text to the second sentence as well, for clarity.
But it actually is an error on the part of the reader, not the part of the writer. You'd lose points on a standard reading comprehension test for that interpretation.
Since the "#1" has NO descriptive text with it, you have to go back to the previous sentence. And there, "woman" is an essential modifier to "chessplayer."
As I mentioned, otherwise you could argue it was the #1 strawberry shortcake maker. The meaning is dependent on the previous sentence.
As an editor or publicist, I would recommend changing the second sentence, just because reporters so often skim stuff in a hurry. You often have to sacrifice a bit of stylistic flow to make sure every sentence can be correctly quoted, even out of context.
But that would be advice, not an absolute requirement. The sentence appears in context. It has no meaning without the context. It is unfortunate that some readers will miss the context, and it would probably be a good idea to change it for that reason.
Respectfully,
Duif
http://www.fide.com/ratings/topl.phtml?code=700088
Good points, Duiff.
Duiff, is there a way to verify that Mrs Polgar has, indeed, won 3 Chess Oscars? (I'm asking you because you have a lot of knowledge about chess sources and data; thanks for your many contributions!)
My own search indicates it is not true, unless it is some Oscar other than the real one, but I might be mistaken.
What's your take on this, Duiff?
You little men are really pathetic. So much energy devoted to fight a claim that 1) isn't that important and 2) happens to be true.
Why do you have so much animosity towards Susan? Jealousy, sexism, something else? Go back to playing in the basement of the library where your chess club meets, dreaming of having half of her talent and marketability.
There are 2 different Chess Oscar awards. One came from Russia and one came from Yugoslavia. It is independent from each other. The one in Russia (published in Russian chess magazine 64) was defunct, then revived and eventually became the one on the FIDE site.
Both Judit and I won the Chess Oscars from Yugoslavia. I know Judit has won multiple times as well. I do not remember how many times, perhaps 9-10?
This is from the FIDE site: "Chess journalists around the world are invited to vote for the Chess Oscar 2005 on the FIDE web site. A project of the FIDE Commission for Chess Information, Publication and Statistics (CHIPS) under chairman Alexander Roshal, new-founder, this well known award was revived by `64` magazine. For more information and web enabled automated voting, go to oscar.fide.com.
Begun in 1968, there was no Oscar from 1989 to 1994 until Roshal revived it in 1995. Gary Kasparov has won the most number of times (11) followed by Anatoly Karpov (9), Viswanathan Anand (4), Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky (2 each), Vladimir Kramnik and Viktor Korchnoi, one each.
In the future, if you want to ask me specific questions, please do so on my blog site which I update multiple times daily. I don't come to this site daily. Therefore, I may miss your questions.
Thanks!
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
There were / are 2 different Chess Oscar awards. One came from Russia and one came from Yugoslavia. The one in Russia was defunct and then revived and eventually became the one on the FIDE site. No woman has ever won that Oscar.
Both Judit and I won the Chess Oscars from Yugoslavia. I know Judit has won multiple times as well. I do not remember how many times, perhaps 9-10?
This is from the FIDE site: "Chess journalists around the world are invited to vote for the Chess Oscar 2005 on the FIDE web site. A project of the FIDE Commission for Chess Information, Publication and Statistics (CHIPS) under chairman Alexander Roshal, new-founder, this well known award was revived by `64` magazine. For more information and web enabled automated voting, go to oscar.fide.com.
Begun in 1968, there was no Oscar from 1989 to 1994 until Roshal revived it in 1995. Gary Kasparov has won the most number of times (11) followed by Anatoly Karpov (9), Viswanathan Anand (4), Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky (2 each), Vladimir Kramnik and Viktor Korchnoi, one each.
In the future, if you want to ask me specific questions, please do so on my blog site which I update multiple times daily. I don't come to this site daily. Therefore, I may miss your questions.
Thanks!
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
Dell Dimension,
Now you understand one of the reasons why more women do not play chess. Who wants to deal with this? Anna Zatonskih visited me at my chess center yesterday. She has the same sentiment. Instead of discussing real issues or doing positive things to help chess, they worry about absolute nonsense daily. It is very sad.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
Dell Dimension,
Now you understand one of the reasons why more women do not play chess. Who wants to deal with this? Anna Zatonskih visited me at my chess center yesterday. She has the same sentiment. Instead of discussing real issues or doing positive things to help chess, they worry about absolute nonsense daily. It is very sad.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgar.com
Hmm. In Norway we have some chess-guestbooks, and often arguments get a little heated. Especially anonymous writers are often impolite. Saw an article about people being a bit less polite on the net. Perhaps chess players also like a good fight with words!?
Susan Polgar is in the forefront in interacting with chessfans, great blog, and I hope that will remain a positive experience for her.
I try to be polite in blogs, and that way I seldom get "attacked". I am only harsh when debating Bush or Kirsan :)
just leave her alone and cimb a tree
Thanks for the response, Mrs. Polgar
I'm gald you clarified the issue, as most people won't even know there is this "other" Oscar from Yougoslavia. Everybody akcnowledges the "real" Chess Oscar as the one won by Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Anand, etc.
The Susan Polgar Box Score:
True enough, let's not quibble:
--"#2 woman in the world." See Duif's post.
--"Currently ranked #1 in the U.S." I agree with Duit that this could have been presented more clearly.
True, but misleading:
--"3-time Winner of the Chess Oscar." (99% of chess fans who read this will assume she won THE Chess Oscar. Who has heard of the YUGOSLAVIAN Chess Oscar?)
Untrue:
--"Susan Polgar is the Current World Champion in Women's Chess." (Random House promotion for their book written by Susan Polgar.)
Ms. Polgar has a spectacular record and no reason whatever to inflate or exaggerate her accomplishments. She states, "I always correct any known mistake." Let's give her a chance to correct the above-discussed misleading representations by her publisher or on her website, and move on.
People who seek a higher visibility always get brickbats as well.
People like Kasparov , Susan Polgar, Kosteniuk who are always in the limelight (whether justified or not) face criticism as well. That is a part and a parcel of being famous.
You have to have the thick skin to shrug off criticism and hostility.
Imagine how much criticism and hostility Mig gets for operation a free blogsite.
People who keep a lower profile such as Peter Leko, Peter Svidler and Judit Polgar do not get so much criticism.
My $0.02 to Ms. Polgar:
Criticism and hostility are the price which you pay for seeking a higher level of visibility. Please develop the thick skin to shrug it off.
The thing that caught my attention was Ms Polgar's claim to have been the first woman to "earn" the GM title. I won't belabor it much, other than to point out that for people outside the world of chess "earn" would imply she was the first to get it (and perhaps would imply to people inside chess that any players, including males, not going through the current norm system didn't "earn" the title either).
Ms Polgar makes the excellent point that her translations may be good but sometimes the nuance is missed...perhaps that was the issue here as well.
As for implications of sexism, I agree completely with an earlier post that it's not sexism as much as it is the nail that sticks up getting pounded down a little more...I can count on one hand the number of public slams I've seen against Judit, for example.
I wish Ms Polgar the best.
Jonas
Congrats to Xu, Women's Chess World Champion!