I forget where Yermo's lamented website content is archived (maybe it's not archived any more), but I recall an article with a funny comment on the social maladroitness of GMs (re. Gelfand, iirc). Something like: If anything else can come from studying Chessbase 12 hours a day, I haven't seen it...

I think the rumors of the social maladroitness of GMs are greatly exagerrated. Surely, there are some bad cases, like Fischer - but I doubt Gelfand is one of those. But mostly, I think it is more a case of rating envy than anything else. The impression I have that most GMs are well rounded individuals who are often talented in many areas other than chess. I think some people often tend to dismiss people who are better than them as chess geeks who have no life, but it doesn't have to be the case at all.

I can't comment on GM personalities because I don't know any, and it's difficult to trust interviews (in business, entertainment and most high-profile fields, interviews tend to be spin devices engineered by press agents).

I barely remember the Yermo passage, but I think he was ranting about GMs' responses to a silly NiC feature asking them their favorite colors, music and the like.

Maybe the whole Aronian brouhaha boils down to modern society's tendency to celebrity worship. At least in the US, the populace seems to fawn over celebrities' (movie stars, athletes, pop musicians, ...) views on politics, science and whatnot, in spite of the fact that the celebrities have no discernible qualifications or expertise in such fields (and indeed, their comments often display notable lack of expertise).

I don't think it was presented in way that would make it seem like Aronian was an expert on gender differences with regards to chess. He just voiced his opinion. I think he was at least partly joking. I doubt someone worships Aronian the chess celebrity enough to take his comments as seriously as those of a credible expert. If anything, the reaction has shown just the opposite.

I agree with Combo kid that the ladies are coming up and coming up fast. I have been watching the games of Hou Yifan recently and this 14 year old Chinese girl is an amazing talent. In wildly complicated positions she can be a 'devilish' tactician. She is a very exciting prospect and I think in 2-3 years time she will give the Carlsens and the Karjakins of the world (and also the Anands, Kramniks and Topalovs) a good run for their money. I won't be surprised if there are more like her coming up.

Either way this was supposed to be meant, "tongue in cheek" or whatever, the problem is: Many woman and girls (and/or their parents) will actually believe such demotivating remarks about woman and chess themselves, unfortunately. It's sad that a top representative of chess says something like that.

Recently, Nona Gaprindashvili made a similar remark, but she comes from a time long gone.
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/05/former-wwc-gaprindashvili-speaks-about.html

Mark Howitt remarked that you have to want to crush your opponent in order to be a strong player. He wrote "crush" in parentheses after "defeat", so I take the former to be his primary definition of the latter.

I could not disagree more.

I've already referred to Reuben Fine speaking about Emanuel Lasker; one other thing he said about the great champion (who reigned longest--no other champion even comes close, Steinitz's reign having properly started in 1886 and not before), was that Lasker was totally devoid of egotism.

Lasker was aggressive, but not toward his opponents.

As a strong player myself, I love to engage in playful, witty trash talk with my online opponents, but I would never wish to see them dispirited or discouraged about playing chess, let alone feel "crushed".

If you wish to display real mastery over chess, remember above all that it is a game. It is not warfare, but mimic warfare--this is one of many things that GM Aronian seems not to have understood.

I suspect that one of the reasons--it is perhaps THE main reason--why women have not done as well in chess as men have done, is because they are more committed to reality. They mature earlier, and it seems that they remain, on the whole, with a significant edge in maturity throughout life. Not for the normal woman the total absorption in games and fantasy that so often mars the lives of many men. Besides exercising the powers of high political office (as in this case the next secretary of state), running increasingly important and profitable businesses, women are busy doing most of what is probably the most important work in the world--raising children. Set beside all that, it is easy to see how chess playing would not seem interesting enough or sufficiently valuable in its own right to tempt them to spend the huge amounts of time that men spend on it.

Could it be that women do their various jobs in the world so well that millions of men have enough time to engage in playing games?

Now there's something for GM Aronian to think about.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"I don't want no teenage queen,
I just want my M-14!"--Full Metal Jacket

Hey Combo_Kid, I've disagreed strongly with some of your comments at ChessNinja (usually about guns or liberals) but I'm in almost complete agreement with you here.

Very well said, Combo_Kid, and, I totally agree with that!


Chess Fan

A great question!!!