“I have a lot of blood in my brain”
Levon Aronjan explains why chess is war and not something for women
Interview by Christian Schwager, Markus Lotter
Mr Aronjan, since the beginnings of the game men have dominated chess. Why is that?
Women cannot play chess.
But that is no explanation. Wasn’t it your sister who taught you chess?
That is true, but women are generally much too emotional for chess. If they want to play really well they have to change their character and suppress their natural instincts. They have to take on male qualities. After all chess is a rough and hard game.
Are all chess players machos?
As a chess player one has to be able to control one’s feelings, one has to be as cold as a machine. We men do not let ourselves be, let us say, seduced by our emotions and feelings. But there is a paradox in chess.
To return to women: what is wrong with their logic? Is it not good enough for world class chess?
Yes, I know there is a myth that chess is a very logical game. But chess is full of spontaneous decisions and determination. With chess you cannot even practice logical thinking. Many people also believe that chess and mathematics are closely connected. But we chess players are not necessarily good at maths.
Here is the full article.
haha..excellent interview…
Yeah, the whole interview is a big joke. Why not joke, when it’s free?
Well, Aro got it by accident that women cannot play chess. I support him there fully.
He got himself away when talking rubbish about no math.
Anyway, the journalists always fall for these tricks.
Aro is a good joker, wish him all the best!
I don’t really know if he was joking.
He is a really good chess player and his point of view should be respected.
But nevertheless imho his point of view looks very excentric to me. I don’t like what I read.
Aronian said exactly the same things in an interview in Torino during 2006 Olympiads…
Two years ago also said that womens are too interested in what they’re wearing and who looks better…
I maybe even banned from this website for what I am about to write. Let me start with this: Aronian is right.
Let me continue with this: women are different from men, beyond the obvious anatomical differences. In our politically correct world, which aims for everybody being equal with everybody else, the differences are only “skin deep” is simply not true. The misunderstanding stems from the superficial understanding of the statistical distributions: for example, if one outstanding individual shows up in one group, many uses that to claim that both groups are “therefore equal”. They are not. The quality (of anything) in any group is based on the statistical bell curve and in most things there are some cross-overs.
One spectacular cross-over just happens to be the Polgar sisters in chess. As the result of this an entire new “culture” emerged:”women can be as good in chess as men, it is only a matter of education, upbringing”. Well….a solid two decades have passed, the fame of the Polgar sisters stood out, yet women didn’t become (on the average) as good as men. They just didn’t. Sure there are some excellent women chess players, but ON THE AVERAGE women still can’t seem to be able to come up to the level of men in chess.
Anything more detailed would require a book 🙂
Seems like humor and especially irony is too difficult for some (most?!) people…
What are we talking about?
I don’t claim that Aronian is wrong. But what is meant by women aren’t asa good as man?
In your argumentation you mention the bell curve.
Are we talking about all chessplayers or only the GMs?
Do you know if the average elo of ALL women differs from the male elo?
What about the standard deviation of the bell curve?
Are men and women receiving the same education?
Are there other reasons why women can’t compete with the very best?
Only if you knew answers to all these question you could say: Aronian is right or wrong..
Before that it’s speculation and I’m not interested in speculations.. Not from Aronian and not from you or anyone..
But of course you’re free to believe what you want 😉
Without facts it’s nothing more than believing..
What are we talking about?
I don’t claim that Aronian is wrong. But what is meant by women aren’t asa good as man?
In your argumentation you mention the bell curve.
Are we talking about all chessplayers or only the GMs?
Do you know if the average elo of ALL women differs from the male elo?
What about the standard deviation of the bell curve?
Are men and women receiving the same education?
Are there other reasons why women can’t compete with the very best?
Only if you knew answers to all these question you could say: Aronian is right or wrong..
Before that it’s speculation and I’m not interested in speculations.. Not from Aronian and not from you or anyone..
But of course you’re free to believe what you want 😉
Without facts it’s nothing more than believing..
GM Aronian is asking for trouble. Haha!
If he’s actually serious, I commend Aronian for futher disproving the myth that a high level of chess skill equates to increased intelligence.
We need to see a woman issue a challenge for the World Chess Championship and win. I’d like to see GM Susan Polgar find some sponsers…say Google, Microsoft and offer Vishy Anand a match for the title.
I also believe FIDE should open the World Chess Championship to female candidates outright. For instance…the Kostinseva sisters should be allowed to fight for their chance for the World Title. Such a rule change would literally open the doors for an upset to happen which allows women players to prove their mettle in chess championship play. Aronian’s comment is erroneous because he assumes the rightness of the genetic fallacy argument. The theory states any artistic achievement can be belittled because if it’s done by the “wrong” gender…then it cannot be trusted.
well i dont think a woman can stand against a man across a chessboard for quite some time……….. nd they (women) are always welcome to khanty mansiysk to have their say in the world title….. I think the only problem with women is lack of ambition. Men can devote all their time nd energy, but women have distratcions in the form of family, husband, baby……
Donner has said the same long before:
– Women cannot play chess!
– Why?
– Because they are too stupid!
Buy yourself a copy of his book ‘The King’. It has all about ‘women and chess’ you want to know.
I expected educated talk from Aronian, but this was just plain stupid from him.
Anything more detailed would require a book 🙂
“
This was enough from you, be sure.
Aronian is an uneducated idiot, and I say that as a man. This just proves that chess ability does not equate to general intellectual strength. My response to him would be the same as my response to the idiot who commented at 8:24. What is the problem in the “analysis”?
It is fact free.
There is a simple, obvious, sufficient explanation for why women do not reach the top ranks of chess,for the most part: very few women play chess.
You might as well complain about the weak intellects of Martians, since they are notoriously poor at chess.
In fact, I have read that women, on average, are about as good as men at chess, but IIRC, the distribution is more tail-heavy, so in fact, there would be more top women players than men if more women played.
Look at math and physics. Women excel at the highest levels in those pursuits.
It’s a cultural difference. Many women cannot sustain the continued study that top flight chess requires because of child rearing and homemaking duties. Coaches and trainers are biased toward boys, not girls. Boys are encouraged more than girls to play chess. The bottom line: There is no inherent difference in chess playing capability between men and women. The difference is cultural, period!
Gosh, a self-inflated, misogynistic GM with a veneer of psuedo-fascist war/battle-romanticism, how refreshing.
I suppose we’re supposed to chalk this up to ‘eccentricity.’
Way to break the mold, Aronian.
Huzzah to Anand and the reign of non-self-indulgent pricks.
Aronian sucks big time. Damn jerk. Probably cause his chess girlfriend gave him the boot to go for another asslike.
This is what happens in this world…
Aronian gave a very smart interview, full of irony and mindful humor, telling only tales, including weird statements – which all together give a very cool story.
Other sites report only parts of the interview with some strong and weird thesis.
And Aronian gets insulted for being an uneducated macho idiot.
Oh dear!
PLEASE read the WHOLE interview and think about it before you judge him!
Aronian would have been pounded on any comment stating something short of “women are as strong players as men or even stronger, but just not interested in chess”. This issue just like race has distinct boundaries within which one should stay in order not to be called sexist or racist.
Aronian did not say women stupid or less smart than men. He said high level chess requires some other qualities like aggressivness that is not that common for women (THANKFULLY!)and ability to control emotions.
As to the argument that women play chess less than male players, there is an example of the former Soviet Union state Georgia, home of world champions Gaprindashvili and Chiburdanidze. Because these traditions generated huge interest especially among female players,that country produced and is continuing to produce large number of top female players. Women chess is more popular than men chess. Yet, none of them is able to compete with top men players.
For those who so offended by Aronian’s opinion, what did politically correct talk on this and similar issues achieve in this country?
Well, there are at least two separate considerations:
First of all, whether he is joking or not. If he is joking, it is well disguised, at least in my view.
Secondly, if he is serious, we do not have to look very far to disprove him.
Judit Polgar is 27th in the worldwide FIDE ranking list, with a rating of 2711. That is in the MEN’S list, OK?
http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men
So women CAN and DO play chess as well as men.
Some examples of her great victories:
Judit beats Kasparov, who tries the Berlin Defense against her:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1254283
Judit sacrifices TWO pieces in the opening, out-maneuvers and beats Anand
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1009882
Judit Beat Shirov- I dont’ think he knows what hit him!
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1111195
Judit Crushes Peter Svidler’s Marshall Attack with tactical brilliancy
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1327766
I rest my case.
Kamalakanta
Yeah, we should wait no longer. Let’s establish new order and reveal the truth with strong statements like ‘they are too emotional’.
Aronian’s comments about women’s ability is ignorant at best and at worst chauvanistic. Not to mention that he repeatedly contradicts himself.
You people look like righteous guardians of women rights… Guy just jokingly expressed some opinions why women may not be able to perform as well as men in high level chess. That’s it! If you want to trash him, you can do regardless what Aronian’s explanation might have been. If he would say, as someone suggested here, “women don’t get to highest levels because of lack of interest”, then counter-argument could be: “What? Women are not able to get interested in creative activities as chess? Sexist bastard…”
Funny but I agree women are generally not suited to play chess.
Of course they can PLAY but they are never as good as MEN. Statistics support this. Maybe it’s cultural, maybe it’s genetics but the tail end of it is: Women can’t play chess 🙂
‘Funny but I agree women are generally not suited to play chess.’
Yo’re not only a “DumbWebProgrammer” but a “DumbBlogger”, I am sorry to say.
Women can and do play chess and they are equals to men.
“You’re not only a “DumbWebProgrammer” but a “DumbBlogger”, I am sorry to say.”
hhahahahahaa!
Good one!
the fact that people get so touchy when hearing aronian’s statements is because they implicitly equate “being able to play chess” with “being smart/intelligent”. that’s totally unsubstantiated. chess players can be geniuses or retared pawn pushers, whether they are GMs or not. your inability to play chess well is only a measure of your inability to play chess and not much beyond that. for instance, i’m f***ing smart as hell but can’t play chess very well. also indians can’t play soccer and would never win the world cup, which was won by brazil 4 times. what does that tell us about indians compared to brazilians – my interpretation is that indians are at a higher stage of evolutionary development because only a buncha idiots will run after a ball for 90 minutes trying to push in some net. if you disagree, you are probably right. i’m a soccer fan by the way, wohoo! in conclusion of my incoherent ramblings, whether one can play chess or not has no bearance whatsoever on any objective measure of their intelligence. so whats your point? when someone says that women cant play chess simply because he/she is observing that there are not so many women GMs competing in tournaments at the same level as men, they are just stating some facts. when you start drawing inferences based on that fact about the intelligence of women, then you become sexist. because your conclusions are unsubstantiated. thats all
Haha! To be at that level, I’m guessing that their time must be narrowly focused on chess. It is thus not surprising that ignorant comments are sometimes made. This does not mean that they are not extremely intelligent, in at least several aspects.
On the other hand, the discussion is by no means settled and it would be silly to label Aronian as just an ignorant fool. It’s obvious that Judith Polgar can play at the highest levels, but this does not mean that women on average are equally capable in chess. I am inclined to think that women are equally capable even on average but this is no more than a guess. Either way, it shouldn’t change anything. They should be encouraged and have full opportunity to play, just like their male counterparts.
“the fact that people get so touchy when hearing aronian’s statements is because they implicitly equate “being able to play chess” with “being smart/intelligent”. that’s totally unsubstantiated. chess players can be geniuses or retared pawn pushers, whether they are GMs or not.”
Chess is game wholly of the mind and if you get to even to Class A OTB, you will find just how difficult it can be. I’ve taken Calculus, Organic Chemistry etc. and I’ve found them all MUCH easier than chess at a 2000 level. It obviously reflects intelligence in at least some areas after a certain rating level. Perhaps that rating level is 2000 or maybe it’s 2200 but it’s definitely way below 2700.
Aronian: But we chess players are not necessarily good at maths.
Survey said: …and he isn’t good at English language, either.
OMG, I didn’t know that so many idiots can gather together. Labeling Aronian without even knowing what he said? Basically Aronian even implied that women are better at ‘thinking’ than man and that’s why can’t play good chess since chess requires emotional qualities. This is irony and even paradox, which means Aronian was joking.
Hey bustards, so you don’t agree with Aronian that women have higher IQ but lack at some emotional qualities like aggressiveness? :)))
Hey, idiot ‘family feud’ you are so ignorant that even couldn’t realize that the interview is a translation?
haha aronian your funny in a sad way though, to be frank im not so sure how well you can play, but to your credit you have a good memory so i guess ur ok !UM.