Why so few women chess players?

Originally posted by vivify
Oh, and to the hypocrits here: why is it that when that female poster says that men have huge easy to bruise egos, that's okay; but when I tell that female poster she should back up her arguments with actual logic, that's sexist?

I think those hypocrits just want to seem like heros and get some internet kudos. Sad.

Sort of a tangent, but I find it remarkable that you've made 105 moves and 76 forum posts.

You might be a candidate for lowest move:post ratio on RHP. Disregarding spam accounts, of course.

Originally posted by EinZweiDrei
Sort of a tangent, but I find it remarkable that you've made 105 moves and 76 forum posts.

You might be a candidate for lowest move:post ratio on RHP. Disregarding spam accounts, of course.

nay, many people ahead of him.

me for example - 5023 moves and this post makes it 8436 public forum posts.

Originally posted by trev33
nay, many people ahead of him.

me for example - 5023 moves and this post makes it 8436 public forum posts.

Jesus

Originally posted by vivify
In other words, you must succumb to insults because you are unable to make any valid points against my superior argument.

Thanks for the compliment.

And way to prove your moral superiority by calling someone "scum" without even saying why.

Have a great day.

You have a nice one too, VR.

skeeter

Originally posted by skeeter
You have a nice one too, VR.

skeeter

do you really believe vr could use 'moral superiority' in a sentence?

Originally posted by trev33
nay, many people ahead of him.

me for example - 5023 moves and this post makes it 8436 public forum posts.

😲

Originally posted by trev33
do you really believe vr could use 'moral superiority' in a sentence?

Yep, and so do you otherwise why raise it ??

skeets

Originally posted by caissad4
Men have larger and more sensitive egos.

Snigger. You've clearly never met my colleagues. No, women have egos just as evil as men, but they gain ego points by backstabbing at other women's fat ankles, not by proving their own di^w^wbrainsize.

Richard