chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

🏆 Gibraltar Masters (2016)

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
The Gibraltar Chess Festival (sponsored 2011-2018 by Tradewise Insurance Company Ltd) started in 2003 and became one of the premier open events in the world. The 14th edition in 2016 attracted a huge field of competitors from around the globe including over 70 grandmasters and over 500 players in all sections. Tournament director: ... [more]

Player: Jens Henrichsen

 page 1 of 1; 9 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Y Santiago vs J Henrichsen  1-0352016Gibraltar MastersE15 Queen's Indian
2. J Henrichsen vs C Nava Pereda  0-1242016Gibraltar MastersE11 Bogo-Indian Defense
3. Edward R Sedillo vs J Henrichsen ½-½492016Gibraltar MastersB52 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
4. J Henrichsen vs Clifton P Ford  1-0222016Gibraltar MastersE17 Queen's Indian
5. Y Saber vs J Henrichsen  1-0352016Gibraltar MastersE17 Queen's Indian
6. J Henrichsen vs Rotimi Ajele  ½-½472016Gibraltar MastersD97 Grunfeld, Russian
7. R Pabalan vs J Henrichsen  ½-½312016Gibraltar MastersC77 Ruy Lopez
8. J Henrichsen vs Martin Boado Rodriguez  0-1302016Gibraltar MastersD97 Grunfeld, Russian
9. J Henrichsen vs C Campbell  0-1572016Gibraltar MastersE11 Bogo-Indian Defense
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Henrichsen wins | Henrichsen loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-17-16  nok: <who's <Denkla>? A woman, of course.> So we're into ad hominem now. She has a PhD in neurology, but hey, she's a woman. Anyway, you posted that.

<In short, hormone production affects brain development and behavior. Brain development and behavior create a loop that further influences brain development. Hormone type and amount of hormone produced are greatly determined by sex. That is my argument. Refutation?>

Nobody's refuting that, because it's generally true. What we're saying is these brains, different from the get-go, handle chess equally well until teen age. This, in spite of fetal and childhood differences, like the testosterone boost at age 4. You cherry-pick the puberty boost because it somehow fits the data.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <nok> No one is playing chess before 4, so there is no before/after like puberty. By 6-7-8, hormone profiles are pretty similar between genders, which is likely the time kids are getting into the game.

<there is no refutation> that's right.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <s4life> <but a teenage girl studying chess really is a weirdo> You claim that this feeling is widely held by the majority, and that it is socially constructed.

Prove it

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <nok> the change at puberty is not just testosterone influence, but the onset of the menstrual cycle, and hormones part and parcel of that process. This also is not happening at 4 (just making sure you're following here). So we have two distinct groups getting heavy hits of select drugs pumped into their system.

You are ignoring that hormones affect behavior. Hormones literally <change the environment> of the brain, and thus directly and indirectly shift the direction of development, through different chosen experiences while under their influence. They both change the environment and the experiences of how the organism interacts with the world, and how that interaction will be processed in the brain.

<Denckla> is wrong. She is not speaking about neurology when she says girls should be pushed into sports like soccer. At most it's been 55/45 boys/girls since 1995, most recently 52/48 http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/media_... so girls are getting plenty of "spatial" reps in. Her entire hypothesis is based on a faulty premise that there is gender bias.

But, then, everything changed physiologically at puberty, and it even affects chess strength. In a world where everything affects everything, and the nature/nurture line is continually shown to be quite blurry, there is absolutely no compelling reason to ignore the powerful influence of sexual differentiation, especially when backed up by appropriate data.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <s4life> and besides some lobs pro-environment, you have said nothing of substance whatsoever. Thanks for clarifying that.
Feb-17-16  Keyser Soze: Some very nice posts <Everett>. thanks
Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: I was looking for something else regarding girls being looked upon as weird because they play chess.

A strong female player herself has said such a thing, people thought she was weird teenager because she studied chess. I have heard it on a personal basis from a female player when I suggested to her 'jokingly' to get a normal boyfriend instead of a geeky chess player.

She said; "Normal boys think I'm weird, all I can get are other chess players."

But that is by the by. A minor moor point. All teenagers are weird.

I have not found the quote online to link it but I found this link where studies have been done titled.

"Girls underperform when they play chess against boys - real-life evidence of stereotype threat? "

Interesting (if you are interested that kind of thing.)

it states:

" "This reinforces our interpretation that there is something specific to the interaction between female and male competitors that produced these performance deficits in females,"

Don't do a Nigel number on me and quote me as saying that. (some clot will) I am only the messenger here.

But if you go there then read the added comments. They ask a few genuine questions and knock a few holes in it.

http://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/01/gi...

Feb-17-16  Absentee: <Everett: Her entire hypothesis is based on a faulty premise that there is gender bias.>

This whole discussion rests on the assumption that there's gender bias.

How do we know that there's gender bias? Because women don't do as well as men in chess. And why don't women do as well as men in chess? Because of gender bias.

Unassailable perfectly circular logic.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <A strong female player herself has said such a thing, people thought she was weird teenager because she studied chess.>

Depending on the school, I bet lots of the <boys> who are studying chess intensely are considered "weird." So maybe the bias is against studying chess too intensely.

Sounds like a healthy bias to me!

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <Absentee> you are spot on. And a lot more succinct then me :-)
Feb-17-16  spysfi: My humble contribution in the discussion for the general predicting ability of the variable "gender" (one thing that I learned during my work as a multiphysics modeler) : It is impossible to construct valid all-in-one models of complex systems. You just have to define regions where the contribution of one variable can be neglected (or taken into account). Sometimes, this definition of the various regions is the solution of the problem itself..
Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Sally Simpson:

A strong female player herself has said such a thing, people thought she was weird teenager because she studied chess. I have heard it on a personal basis from a female player when I suggested to her 'jokingly' to get a normal boyfriend instead of a geeky chess player.

She said; "Normal boys think I'm weird, all I can get are other chess players.">

Maybe the "normal boys" are intimidated by a "strong female" and it has nothing to do with chess?

Feb-17-16  nok: <You are ignoring that hormones affect behavior. (...) how the organism interacts with the world,> and so on and so forth. These statements are so general they're trivial, man. Your mistake is when you say, *therefore* hormones affect chess ability, a very specific statement. It's a basic logical mistake. You didn't take my advice to take dope and see if you get better, so your argument rests on the following:

"How do we know hormones affect chess ability? Because women don't do as well as men in chess. And why don't women do as well as men in chess? Because hormones affect chess ability."

So there. But in the meantime, we disproved your premise (that hormones affect chess ability). Because male and female brains are soaked in different hormones from fetal stage, the discrepancy in ability should appear well before teen age if it was true. Since you're now quickly backpedaling: <By 6-7-8, hormone profiles are pretty similar between genders>, I think you understood the problem well.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: For those still interested Edward Winter has a full thread on 'Chess and Women.'

A few excerts:

"‘Why have there been so few important female chessplayers? Arguments about social repression have never satisfactorily answered the question.

The Freudian view, summed up in a classic paper by Ernest Jones, is that the game represents a man’s oedipal attempt to kill his father, but a simpler view would suggest that women just aren’t nuts enough."

Clive James, The Observer, 11 October 1981, page 48.

and this by one from the 1924 'American Chess Bulletin' by Ernest Reel.

"‘A woman’s mind is a market place crowded with so many mental reflections that it is hardly fair to ask her to concentrate on what is purely a man’s game.

Chess is the weak spot in her mental armour. When a woman plays at chess she is apt to rest her chin on her hand and incidentally display her rings. "

Good grief I wonder what the mail bag look like the following week.

a couple of quotes are there:

“Chess is as much a mystery as women” – Purdy.

"There is also the aspect of creativity in chess. You have to create new ideas.

That’s quite difficult, too. Chess is the combination of sport, art and science. In all these fields, you can see men’s superiority.

Just compare the sexes in literature, in music or in art. The result is, you know, obvious. Probably the answer is in the genes."

Gary Kasparov, Playboy November 1989.

...and two from Edward Winter himself.

"Wanted: one topical chess forum where 100% of the contributions are worth reading, and not 100 forums where 1% are."

and:

"Has any article in chess history been so misrepresented as Nigel Short’s on female players in New in Chess?"

The whole thread of which I have snatched just a few items is well worth a full read.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <nok> <"How do we know hormones affect chess ability? Because women don't do as well as men in chess. And why don't women do as well as men in chess? Because hormones affect chess ability.">

Yet there are studies and science behind all that, unlike ambiguous, unquantifiable and possibly non-existent bias/environment devoid of physiology. So, your mirrored statement doesn't hold water.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <nok> <..trivial, man.>

And the difference between girls and boys doesn't really kick in until puberty, or haven't you noticed?

My point of bringing up earlier changes in the brain are to cement the fact that there are differences from the get-go, that all the differences between boys and girls <cannot> be all from the <environment>, devoid of physiological differences. And these early changes cannot but affect later changes and interactions with the world.

Boys are held back in school by a year just so they can be on the same level as girls in elementary school, particularly due to language skills. Boys and girls are on different clocks, and thinking different ways and doing different things from the outset.

Really <nok>. See you later, discussing another topic, I hope. Best wishes and all that.

Feb-18-16  nok: <<How do we know hormones affect chess ability? Because women don't do as well as men in chess.> Yet there are studies and science behind all that,> You wish, but the studies don't say that. They show men slightly ahead in recognizing some patterns, women slightly ahead in some other patterns, and a majority of tasks split.

<unlike ambiguous, unquantifiable and possibly non-existent bias/environment devoid of physiology.> There are a lot of studies on gender bias, ignore them at your own peril. Example: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20909

Anyway: athletes take steroids, but mathematicians and chessplayers don't. This should make you think. See you later all right.

Feb-18-16  s4life: <Everett: <s4life> <but a teenage girl studying chess really is a weirdo> You claim that this feeling is widely held by the majority, and that it is socially constructed. Prove it>

Everett. I never said such thing. That's not my statement.. Quote me correctly please.. not only that, but I just noticed you went for ad hominem attacks... calling me ilogical, irrational, and emotional.. based on what? the statement I supposedly said? anyway.. this discussion is fruitless as you don't seem to be formally trained on any of this stuff and I have no time educate you in any constructive way. I have (much better) things to do and have no time to check this forum often enough.. I'll let you have the last word.. won't be checking back as it will probably be more of the same: gloating, ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.. a typical internet discussion.

you said this right?
<<absentee> I think <mulled wine> is coming from a place of emotion, and no sort of logic/rational principles will influence him. <s4life> is similar.>

Feb-25-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: ah, yes, the old <ad hominem> conceit. Educate yourselves: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/ad...

Meanwhile, most here provide no argument, no analysis, no studies, just feelings and opinions with no substance. To point this out is clearly not <ad hominem> attack. It's an attempt on my part to understand why people simply go on with opinions without backing them up with anything of substance whatsoever.

Meanwhile, here's some more info for everyone to consider. http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Feb-25-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Y'all know Ah could give <any> woman odds of a knight.
Feb-25-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: Ah yes, I see now, it was <nok> who said <For children, playing – even board games – is normal; but a teenage girl studying chess really is a weirdo.> So the burden is on him, a century after Vera Menchik and two decades of the world famous Polgar sisters, that this is true and of any significance.

Apologies <s4life>. You did, however, mention material you had concerning phenotype, inheritable traits, etc. Would appreciate seeing that.

Feb-25-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <chess playing ability> is measured in competitive settings. Having the talent to see patterns is one thing, having the ambition and drive to compete and win under pressure is another. Elo rating attempts obviously combines both.

What I find interesting in much of the hormonal-influence material on brain development and behavior is that women are most competitive with each other when estrogen is high, and also during the ovulation phase of the menstrual cycle. Meanwhile, there is evidence that they are not so keen on <competing> against men during that same phase.

meanwhile <testosterone> is aggressive straight through, regardless of gender.

And this is just scratching the surface. But thank goodness it is somewhat quantifiable.

So, it seems to me <nok> that the reason some chess-players do not take hormones to improve their performance may be 1) they don't know the potential benefits 2) don't like the nasty, unnatural side-effects or 3) there are other drugs that are safer to use, without the cascade effect that comes from hormonal influence.

Feb-25-16  morfishine: There is no way of measuring "chess playing ability"

Keep trying though, it amuses us

*****

Feb-26-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: <morfishine> competition measures "playing ability" in most anything. That's why they have the competitions, to test their ability and hopefully improve their results. Thus they get greater "playing ability."

Enjoy your amusement.

Apr-18-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  WTHarvey: I posted 51 chess puzzles from the 2016 Tradewise Gibraltar Tourny at http://wtharvey.com/gib16.html Find the winning move.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 16)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC