Poor old Nigel. People just can't help being horrid to him. Especially women.
There was a woman on NZ television... calling me a twat...does she know what a twat is? That's pretty damn rude.You know, I suspect that she does know what a twat is, and I suspect that she also knows what Nigel is. In some ways, perhaps a little better than Nigel does himself, or is ever likely to - not while he continues to be baffled as to why he's in a fight that he's gone out of his way to pick himself.
Because I suspect that as long as he keeps using terminology like "mad feminist" or "shrill feminists" or "tyrannical feminist lobby" or indeed refers to women as "totty" or "trained monkeys", then he's never going to run short of women to insult him.
People can be unfair like that.
Read the whole thing, if you "like to be outraged". Or if you don't. Personally I'm keen (actually not all that keen) to know why Nigel's so sure that
three kids from some rough backgroundwould be so unlikely to be smart or talented enough to succeed at chess given the same training that the Polgars had -or, for that matter, what he said about chess and
it's (sic) ability to stave off Alzheimer's disease.Maybe he'll tell us in a future edition of the, ah, "scholarly chess journal New in Chess". Just for this morning though, let's close with three observations.
One is that when the author writes that
the Telegraph's [headline] for example, was 'girls just don't have the brain to play chess', something Short certainly did not sayit is hard, looking at Nigel's statement
Men and women's brains are hard-wired very differentlyto conclude that "girls just don't have the brain to play chess" is something Nigel "certainly did not say". Because that's what it means. When you say that male and female brains are hard-wired differently - and that you consider this the major explanation for their substantially varying performances at chess - what you just said is that women's brains, by and large, make them worse players than men.
Second is that when Nigel says that
Nobody...in the chess world, found it worth of commenthe is clearly working on a substantially different definition of "nobody" than I would use. Lots of people, as I recall. Even if we're individually nobodies. Gnats rather than elephants. But that ain't "nobody".
Third is that when Nigel claims that
most top female players - he reels off a list of names - agreed with himthen whatever the truth or otherwise, it kind of evades the point, which is this: how many scientists agreed with him?
Any advance on none?
[Nigel Short index]