London open time Videos

They don't like gambling because it make teams throw

+ananasavradas to make matters worse, ESEA was trying to mine bitcoins from subs via their client not too long ago, it is not really believable when he says they have the best interest of the game in mind. They probably banned the betting sites probably because they could not get a cut of the pie, and it is really obvious that CSGL and ESEA are not in good terms. Warowl, you are disappoint.

//www.hltv.org/news/16007-g2-trio-to-nip-report It has not been officially confirmed, but is most likely going to happen.

+ZeChap - CSGO and TF2 ContentWhere did you get this info, because I can't find anything about it.

Just surprised.

Apologies?

Joining*

k bye

Because u can't throw for money in fantasy

+Brian Lee Indeed it is

+Rana Kamikaze Hard to decide really, all the best AWPers are at quite high levels of skill

+TheHobbyJo Having been a part of the tech test during the week, siege's shooting mechanics seem (to me) a lot closer to COD games.

+Gary thanks

Happy Trading

+Dolcelino Moretti Nice to check out the post here!

+Gabriele Toscani Thank you

+Geraldo L. Rice thanks

+jamezz34 anası sikişmiş burayadamı geldim

+jamezz34 Best Auto Binary Signals Review byhttps://plus.google.com/102218182991148546098/posts/DE8mhkdAHPa

gary,how the fuck do you know...........tard boy.

Sure they do, and if fact it is in general a very volatile hour: In summer from 7 to 8 UTC. By the way, you do not have to pay to get this strategy, it is a very famours strategy (not developed by the guy who published this video) simple just google it and look for it in Dukascopy articles. Finally with the record lows in volatilty we are having (thanks to Yellen mainly), this strategy should be used only for two hours. After summer there is no overlap so do not even try to use it. 

Yes, just as He expressed to the Samaritan woman who was asking for His help Matt. 15:21-28.

+Vernon Steinkamp exactly, Jews seek a sign and greeks seek wisdom...god wanted to give every opportunity to save the unbelieving Jews which if you remember throughout the Old Testament kept forgetting gods great miracles he performed like getting them out of Egypt, manna from heaven ect... Therefore when Jesus came, he performed miracles to show them that he was god, as well as to show them that he was their rightful king to come and fulfill all that had been promised to them through Abrahams faith ect....remember Jesus went to save his own people the Jews first, he told his desciples specifically to preach the kindgom to the ones in the house of Isreal. His own recieved him not just like in the desert, the past repeated itself and thus God turned his attention to the gentiles and thus they were grafted in to His kingdom...this is why Jesus and his disciples were healing people as a sign. Healing in that manner does not exsist in this gentile church age.

Those gifts were pasted on to the apostles, those who were eye witnesses of Jesus.

+unitewithch I think physical healing is expected. If I remember my gospels correctly it is something Christ told his followers they could do if they but asked Him faithfully in prayer to do. I think if you're devout this is an act you're capable of, according to scriptures.

+Vernon Steinkamp astute observation..Just a guess here but maybe it has something to do with him sweeping around the country on his Learjet swindling money from his unsuspecting cult members. Dont mean to sound to harshly, but hey a spade is a spade.

Often wondered why Benny Hinn doesn't make sweeps through the hospitals.

+fomalhaut depends on what kind of healing you speak of...Man is usually only concerned with the healing of the fleshly body which will eventually erode die anyway and in fact is doing that at this very moment. True healing comes from the gospel of truth of which saves people now in this life by giving them a new spirit in Jesus, instead of a continuation of death/flesh in an eternity in hell. The importance placed on what particular healing someone really needs depends on if your after the things of the flesh, or putting your sights and mind on the things of the spirit.

+fomalhaut Matthew 16:4

AMEN brother thank you please keep up the great work.

+hamy72 that's why Islam is invading the land. They don't want the God of the Bible, so He gives them a strong delusion based on the hardness of their hearts

Im shocked how many people didnt know this song at the concert i went to in Wolverhampton. I think I was the only 1 singin :)

we don't care what those critics say either, Gary! :) that album had Lie to me on it, it's enough reason to like it.

What a wonderful song, takes me back to those teenage years

Love it when he says everything feels a bit tight :p

"the boys are back" moment was soo cuutee :DDDD

Thanks hadn't looked until you said. Oops :)

I love this man, great song!!!

it's called "Open Road" :)

haha the helplines 

+enter.the.void That's the best you got? Wow you're so retarded, i almost feel sorry for you ... Almost

+David JRhahahillbilly from balkans is mad

+enter.the.void Did your father leave or kill himself? I'd probably choose killing myself if i knew i had any part in creating a piece of shit like you

+enter.the.void Did your father leave or kill himself? I'd probably choose killing myself if i knew i had any part in creating a piece of shit like you

+David JRof course a balkan redneck's life call is to defend all dumb man chauvinists world wide haha

+enter.the.void That's because he's not a professional chess player, however his point is still valid

+AngryPenguin27 That stupid profile photo and this stupid coment xd Or are you joking or you are a retarded gringo

+AngryPenguin27 She would beat you playing with a blindfold

+AngryPenguin27 hmm?

+James Florez it was very helpful, don't hate.

+James Florez It's an instructional video, he always analyses games

+alio op Yea I agree with you,in fact i find this channel very entertaining

+Nicola Rossi indeed. I prefer watching Mato's videos but still I very much appreciate this channel.

+Chris Pappas if you wanna see only the game go to Matojelic's channel

+mizofan Winning one game doesn't mean that the winner is a better player, that's why there are so many games played and ratings

+StarReel It tells us you're an idiot. Her gender has nothing to do with anything.

+Basic_Assumption XD Again you are exercising due ignorance by blatantly ignoring the fact that Richard Lynn, Irwing, Nyborg, Rushton ( those authors that you claimed I didn't pick) are NOT credible. They are neo-nazis and Nyborg as of 2007 has been firedAnd you also ignored the fact that you ignored the rank of the researchers in which all the best ones were the ones I SELECTIVELY used example Jim Flynn (founder of the Flynn Effect). This is why I don't use wikipedia. You are take the information there without actually having knowledge of the researchers rank and the content of their studies. I read ALL OF THOSE STUDIES you cited. Apart from the researchers you used being total neo-nazis, they also used a ONE form of IQ tests only known as Raven's Progressive which is not a pure measure of intelligence. Raven's  is entirely a fuck picture test which you wouldn't know because you have never DONE AN IQ Test.  *That is also why actual IQ researchers use multiple IQ tests such as  Standford Binet, Culture-fair, Primary Mental Abilities, Wordsum etc* If you actually read one of your sources you would find that they used 42 different IQ tests and found no sex differences while you're source only used ONE. Epic fail.This is exactly why I don't cite wikipedia and I started this whole conversation citing from actual peer reviewed sites with CITED author's note (not second hand interpretation). I also carefully selected the author for their rank in the IQ community. Lol, what a joke you are.And no, no one takes Chess seriously as a career. Only those with obsession about it which happens to be mostly men. Even if you look at women on average, their lives are more varied and not focused towards board games and competitive activities.

+Son of NemesisI did respond- 140 lines. In case the response is getting flagged due to length, let me summarize:No, the Wikipedia article supports my position: you bolded only the part that seemed to favor your argument, ignored the rest, and then accused me of "cherry-picking". You can clearly see in the opening blurb the part about "many show an advantage for men" and "larger variability for male scores compared to female scores". Fail.Secondly, I love how I utterly changed your view on Wikipedia (owned): the article cites many academic studies that show a distinct advantage for men that cannot be explained via socialization, and also show an advantage for men at the top. Fail # 2.Lastly, I love how you completely abandoned the ballet dancer analogy, given that one women in the top 100 chess players is a statistical improbability if the explanation is simply "women do not like board games as much as men." We're not talking about monopoly here, moron.I'm going to limit the length of my responses- I usually destroy white knight tough guys like you with 1000+ line rebuttals, but since YouTube appears to be flagging my comments, I don't want to do all that extra work for nothing.You got your ass handed, INTELLECTUALLY, pal. Don't throw your hat in the ring with people who are light years ahead of you mentally. When you're wrong, simply admit you're wrong and move on- it'll save you loads of embarrassment.Awaiting response.

+Basic_Assumption I see you didn't bother to respond. I assume it's because you got destroyed like a bitch. intellectually  lool

+Son of Nemesis First off, thank you for conceding the argument about Wikipedia being "bullshit." I accept your concession (love how this guy went from calling it bullshit to copy/pasting block quotes from it). Second off, yes, the site does agree with me: you purposefully bolded only those parts of the introductory paragraph that favor your position. As I stated before, Wikipedia cites many academic studies that show a slight advantage for men ("with many showing a slight advantage for males") in average IQ scores, and also show a significant advantage for men at the upper echelons of mental performance ("[s]ome studies have concluded that there is a larger variability in male scores compared to female scores, which results in more males than females at the top and bottom of the IQ distribution.")Thirdly, yes, Wikipedia does have stringent rules for inclusion, especially when the topic is controversial (verifiability, reputable source, neutral point of view, and non-original research are some of these rules). The studies cited are all academic studies, many of which are in direct contradiction to your argument. Here are only SOME of them:E. Nisbet, Richard (Feb 2012). "Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments" (PDF). American Psychologist. doi:10.1037/a0026699. PMID 22233090.Lynn, Richard; Irwing, Paul (2004). "Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis". Intelligence 32 (5): 481–498. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008.Lynn, Richard (1994). "Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved". Personality and Individual Differences 17 (2): 257–71. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90030-2.Blinkhorn, Steve (2005). "Intelligence: A gender bender". Nature 438 (7064): 31–2. Bibcode:2005Natur.438...31B. doi:10.1038/438031a. PMID 16267535.Irwing, Paul; Lynn, Richard (2006). "Intelligence: Is there a sex difference in IQ scores?". Nature 442 (7098): E1; discussion E1–2. Bibcode:2006Natur.442E...1I. doi:10.1038/nature04966. PMID 16823409.Keith, Timothy Z.; Reynolds, Matthew R.; Patel, Puja G.; Ridley, Kristen P. (2008). "Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 6 to 59: Evidence from the Woodcock–Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities". Intelligence 36 (6): 502–25. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.11.001.Colom, Roberto; Lynn, Richard (2004). "Testing the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence on 12–18 year olds". Personality and Individual Differences 36: 75–82. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00053-9.Flynn, Jim; Rossi-Casé, Lilia (2011). "Modern women match men on Raven's Progressive Matrices". Personality and Individual Differences 50 (6): 799–803. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.035.Irwing, Paul (2012). "Sex differences in g: An analysis of the US standardization sample of the WAIS-III". Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2): 126–31. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.001.Savage-McGlynn, Emily (2012-07-01). "Sex differences in intelligence in younger and older participants of the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Plus". Personality and Individual Differences. Evolution of race and sex differences in intelligence and personality: Tribute to Richard Lynn at eighty 53 (2): 137–141.So, actually, the Wikipedia article supports exactly what I was saying: that plenty of academic studies demonstrate male advantages in IQ, and that men outnumber women at the top and bottom of the IQ distribution, resulting in more genius men who are "more genius" than genius women. Thank you for outright lying about what the article says. It is especially ironic how you quote a part of the opening paragraph of the article, highlight only a section that supports your position, and then accuse your opponent of doing the same. No, I explained to you that plenty of studies exist that show male advantages in IQ, and male advantage at the top. Combining this with the fact that there is only 1 woman in the top 100 chess players, a statistical improbability if we believe, as you falsely and idiotically do, that this is merely the result of women not being as interested in board games as men (hence your false ballet dancer analogy, which you've promptly ignored in subsequent responses after I demonstrated its fallacy), it appears that there is indeed a discrepancy in male/female mental force that is not satisfactorily explained via socialization. And trying to distract from this reality by citing Polgar "losing neurons" does not change the fact that there is still only one woman in the top 100, and she is nowhere near the top (it is the women's chess champion, and she hovers around 70th).I love how I systematically have changed this guy's entire worldview: so now Wikipedia is not bullshit and ballet dancers are irrelevant, right? Before the week is over, you'll be arguing against your original position, sweetheart. Juvenile garbage...utterly dissected your entire argument. When your opponent has demonstrated the reasonableness of his position, and when you have failed to substantively rebut it, choosing instead to fill in the lack of support for your position with ad hominems and emphasis of only that data which seems to favor your argument, it is time to admit to yourself that you have lost (i.e., you're wrong, darling). Awaiting response...no response equals automatic concession....waiting....P.S. I love how these white knight tough guys, after having their argument completely demolished, start off with "you've lost the argument already"- LOL. Perfect indication of intellectual vulnerability and recognition that their position is weak.

+StarReel There's a difference between a 21 year old fresh player and a female player who is going off into retirement and slowly losing neurons due to older age. Idiot lol.

+Basic_Assumption Wow looool. I just checked out wikipedia and even IT doesn't agree with you.At the bottom middle it cites one of my studies and the whole article itself begins with:  Differences in intelligence or mental power have long been a topic of debate among researchers and scholars. With the advent of the concept of g or general intelligence some form of empiricism was allowed, but results are often inconsistent with studies showing either no differences or advantages for both sexes , with many showing a slight advantage for males.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] One study did find some advantage for women in later life,[8] while another found that male advantages on some cognitive tests are minimized when controlling for socioeconomic factors.[9] The differences in average IQ between men and women are small in magnitude and inconsistent in directionGiven that the whole article's premise  matches up with mine --- that general IQ is unknown because it's so inconsistent, it's laughable how you cherrypick only the data that suits your biased beliefs. Pathetic lol.

+Basic_Assumption Actually your position is lost beyond scale. It's not even just about "academic studies" but who is the author and leader researcher of the study. Did you check that? Nope. And neither did you check the sources which is why you're name is basic assumption cuz you assume like an idiot. My source of researchers are the very top and highest in their recognition of work...wikipedia is not.  And no, wikipedia sources does NOT control for recruitment or socialization sources loool. And also, those studies are all a singular RAVENS IQ but one of the sources I cited used *42 mental ability IQ tests Raven only measures Spatial IQ which the researchers agree men are better at but the other tests measure Verbal and other forms of IQ which women are better at*These are the names of the professors and researchers I cited:Richard E. Nisbett University of Michigan  Joshua Aronson and Clancy Blair New York    University   William Dickens Northeastern University    James Flynn University of Otago    Diane F. Halpern Claremont McKenna    College     Eric Turkheimer University of VirginiaRoborto Colom, Professor in Portugal.Arthur Jensen was the author of over 400 scientific papers published in refereed journals] and sat on the editorial boards of the scientific journals Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences.James Flynn is also a famous IQ professor renowned for his work. Keep dreaming on buddy, I rather stick to the facts then hold my ear and singing lahlahlah as if they don't exist

+Son of Nemesis Wikipedia cites academic studies, and a good amount of them (recent ones) show minor IQ advantages for men, even when controlling for socialization, so calling Wikipedia "bullshit", especially when the information is sourced and can be easily traced by clicking the link, is invalid. Wikipedia's policy for inclusion of material requires neutrality of viewpoint, verifiability by reputable sources, and no original research. These points apply all the more strenuously when it comes to controversial articles like "Sex and Intelligence."Moreover, as previously stated, men show much greater clusters at the extremes of the IQ curve, which means that, all else being equal, male geniuses are more numerous and "more genius" than female geniuses. Lastly, your analogy with ballet dancers is still, for lack of a better word, bullshit.Keep copy/pasting stuff to make yourself feel better about the inconclusiveness of your position. ;-).

+Basic_Assumption +H Scott +robertoppenheimer You want more evidence of IQ? Peer reviewed studies:Jensen addressed the question of female–male differences in intelligence by analyzing tests that “load heavily on g” but were not normed to eliminate sex differences. He concluded no evidence was found for sex differences in the mean level of g or in the variability of g.Males, on average,excel on some factors; females on others (Jensen, 1998, pp. 531–532). Jensen’s conclusion that no overall sex differences existed has been bolstered by researchers who assessed intelligence with a battery of 42 mental ability tests (Johnson & Bouchard, 2007  )They found that most of the tests showed little or no sex differences* There were, however, several tests that showed a difference between males and females of 0.5 SD or more. These differences included an advantage for females for verbal abilities such as fluency and memory abilities and an advantage for males on visuospatial abilities such as object rotation These researchers recommended that the usual partition of intelligence into fluid and crystallized components be replaced with a model that partitions intelligence into verbal, perceptual, and visuospatial rotation. When this model is used, females excel at verbal and perceptual tasks; males excel at visuospatial tasks-  Richard E. Nisbett University of Michigan  Joshua Aronson and Clancy Blair New York    University   William Dickens Northeastern University    James Flynn University of Otago    Diane F. Halpern Claremont McKenna    College     Eric Turkheimer University of Virginia//www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdfAcademic study and article not wikipedia bullshit.Girls beat boys in UK IQ. The IQ adminstration in the past have been largely sloppy due to poor assessment of methodological techniques and biases. Two of which are A) Restricted biases from opportunity samples like colleges, which fails to represent the general population B) Recruitment flaws especially regarding volunteers who choose to participate in the restricted samples. These resulted in method effects which have largely produced inconsistent results. For the first time, researchers used a large representative UK sample of 926 seven to 18 year olds who were chosen from multiple recruitment centers such primary schools, junior schools, secondary schools and colleges across the U.K. which were identified according to their geographic location, identified social standing of the catchment area, population density (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural), and ethnicities of the attending pupils. State and private schools as well as denominational and non-denominational schools were included in participant recruitment. A total of 85 schools and colleges were selected and invited to participate in the standardization project of the Raven’s SPM and colleges across the United Kingdom. After administration of the Raven's Progressive IQ test, the results were .026 standard deviations higher for older girls than for older boys This was not drastically significant but still a notable effect in deviation. Years of former researchers Lynn and Rushton's flawed studies are now starting to be scrutinized under it's methodological errors. With all psychometric properties and methods fixed, females from the general population beat males in the Raven's IQ with a standard deviation of 0.26.https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/241366/Sex?sequence=3 (PG 178)A total of 4072 high school graduates was tested (1772 females and 2300 males). The results reveal that females outperform males in the PMA Reasoning test, that males outperform females in the Raven, and that there is no sex difference in the Culture-Fair Test Therefore, given that there is no systematic difference favoring any sex in the measures of Gf, and that there is no sex difference in the best available measure of Gf (the Culture-Fair Test), it is concluded that the sex difference in fluid intelligence (IQ) is non-existent//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690100040X

+Basic_Assumption Are you for real? Citing wikipedia is a joke. I already read those wikipedia sources and those are from Richard Lynn, Philip Rushton and other methodological flawed sources. Roborto Colom is one of the best IQ researchers out there definitely miles ahead of Richard Lynn.A total of 4072 high school graduates was tested (1772 females and 2300 males). The results reveal that females outperform males in the PMA Reasoning test, that males outperform females in the Raven, and that there is no sex difference in the Culture-Fair Test Therefore, given that there is no systematic difference favoring any sex in the measures of Gf, and that there is no sex difference in the best available measure of Gf (the Culture-Fair Test), it is concluded that the sex difference in fluid intelligence (IQ) is non-existent//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690100040X^^^^^^  This is a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC SITE. It means its published by actual academics and researchers not editors on Wikipedia.

+Son of Nemesis Plenty of studies, from various sources and purporting to control for socialization, exist showing a minor advantage in IQ points for men over women, and a distinct advantage for male clustering at the extreme ends of the IQ bell curve (more men with genius IQ and also with retarded IQ). Most are listed in the Wikipedia article on "Sex and Intelligence". Also, the sheer dearth of women in the top 100 chess players in the world doesn't match up with the numerous male ballet dancers that are considered as good, or better, than their female counterparts, so this analogy is weak at best.

+H Scott That is bullshit propaganda from eugenicists Richard Lynn, and Phillipe Rhuston.. The average IQ points are currently unknown because no studies have been able to use proper methodology and recruitment factors to deduce about the sex differences in general population instead of specific college samples. There are also different forms of IQ tests so I don't know what you are talking about.In fact, from an objective IQ psychologist and professor Roberto Colom of Portugal:A total of 4072 high school graduates was tested (1772 females and 2300 males). The results reveal that females outperform males in the PMA Reasoning test, that males outperform females in the Raven, and that there is no sex difference in the Culture-Fair Test Therefore, given that there is no systematic difference favoring any sex in the measures of Gf, and that there is no sex difference in the best available measure of Gf (the Culture-Fair Test), it is concluded that the sex difference in fluid intelligence (IQ) is non-existent//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690100040XSo the 4 points IQ tests you were quoting about were the Raven's Matrices which are a series of picture tests conducted by the eugenicists Richard Lynn. It didn't take into account the other 100 forms of IQ tests two of which are PMA and Culture fair.And IQ scores cannot explain the sex differences in chess players at the highest level. The standard deviation for high IQs over 140 is 20 percent female and 80 percent male ( MENSA) hence the most likely explanation is that there are simply less professional female chess players to begin with, just like less professional male ballet dancers. Women simply are not interested in a career of board games as men are.

+Basic_AssumptionWell said to say the least.

+Jack Carver The mean IQ score for men on the standard test is about 4 points higher than the mean score for women so yes it would seem that on average men are 'smarter' than women. Interestingly, the standard deviation for men's IQs is considerably higher than the standard deviation for women's IQs and so at the top end (and bottom) of the IQ scale, let us say a 150 IQ, there are many more men than women. This probably explains,in part, why women cannot compete with men in chess at the highest level and why women face the glass ceiling when competing against men for high level positions. 

+FraggingBard False analogy, pal: Polgar is indisputably considered the best female player of all time, and Magnus crushed her. Spassky has been bested by numerous Russians, Russians whom Fischer never played (Kasparov, for one). Only way your analogy holds is if 1) Spassky is somehow indisputably considered the best Russian player ever, and Fischer consistently demonstrated indisputable superiority over him (as Carlsen has done against Polgar, along with the fact that out of the top 100 chess players in the world, only one is a women, a near statistical impossibility, even when accounting for differences in wealth, education, and socialization, yet in Fischer's time, numerous Russians were in contention) and 2) the variability in defeat and victory of Russian players versus Fischer is shown to be beyond that which would be expected of those players who are competing against the world's then # 1 (i.e., they would mostly lose until Fischer's prime has passed, though in the case of Fischer, he simply stopped playing after beating Spassky)- however, this is not the case (the variability we see in defeat and victory of Russian players against the world's # 1 is indeed the variability we would expect to see if we presume, as we do, that being Russian does not necessarily put you at a distinct disadvantage in the realm of professional chess. But, we do NOT see this expected variability if we presume that being a female does not necessarily put you at a distinct disadvantage in the realm of professional chess: in the case of females, we see the exact OPPOSITE, i.e., the statistical presence of a distinct disadvantage, which, remaining unexplained when controlling for social factors, is best explained by the next most obvious possibility: being female).What does this suggest? It suggests that, on average, men are superior to women in chess. Similarly, it suggests that Caucasian (which includes much of the Indian sub-continent) and Asian men are superior to men of other races in chess (though not necessarily as dominantly as men in general are superior to women in chess) (and if you're wondering about Caucasian vs. Asian, that's too close to call, given that there are plenty of Asian men in contention in the top 100). Of course, chess aptitude does not necessarily equate with intelligence quotient, but if one is to proceed from the basis that there is at least some parity between the two, as evidence suggests there is, then one can reasonably extrapolate from the chess world to the idea of general mental superiority (still averaging, of course). As Americans, even though we might realize there is validity in the preceding, we don't talk about that kind of thing because it scares us: we realize that the edifice of equality and diversity is something we have fought very hard to maintain, and we do not wish to see it fall. That being said, it does not give carte blanche for others to start making false analogies and outright lying about plainly evident facts. Lol...you actually brought up Fischer v. Spassky and pretended that that was a coherent and valid analogy? How intellectually dishonest do you have to be to sink that low? 

+StarReel Men are smarter than women on average.And it's not surprising that the strongest male chess player is stronger than the strongest female chess player.And I'm not being sexist here - it's the truth.

+mizofan lol they beat her too

+robertoppenheimer Thank you for the comments. I do not know how anyone could have gotten through what I wrote...LOL!! I am no expert on intelligence testing so I will refrain from commenting on that further. However, I think the "testiness" of the comment should have no bearing on whether or not it merits further consideration. Science should be objective. In any case, sometimes testy debates can be enjoyable a long as we stick to logic, refrain from bias and respond truthfully to one another. Good luck with your daughters. I only hope that one of them becomes the next Alberta Einstein! Cheers.

+H Scott Thanks for the reply and I enjoyed reading your comment. As a father of two daughters (no sons) and a scientist wannabe, I would like to think that they are equipped with the same tools as their counterparts. What I am sure of is that we currently do not have the tools or methods tomeasure intelligence. Even if we were to assume that men are “smarter” than women, there isn’t anything inherently superior in Y chromosome. This is a great topic to discuss in bio-physics class but it can get pretty testy on the internet.

+robertoppenheimer  Hi. Do not take this personally but I do not care that the topic is controversial. Let the cards fall where they may. For example, I often wondered why men have traditionally dominated in the sciences. Indeed there may be a biological basis for this but it may also be due to environment or "arbitrary social constructs". It is paramount to point out that the scientific method may be used to provide us with an objective and concrete answer if we so desire provided we are able to define the proper criteria to measure and how they should be measured. I do not personally care what the answers are but I do acknowledge that there are steps we can take to determine them. I believe that my previous comments may have been taken out of context save for the fact that my follow up comment was apologetic and also agreed with another poster's statement "What does that tell us about male chess players?" which was not logical (the answer to this question is nothing and I need to learn how to read more attentively) . Some posters need to realize that , whether they care or not or whether it is right or wrong, some comments do offend others even if its (perchance) a simple disagreement. Whether or not you accept a person's political correctness is up to you but do not assume that others feel as you do. I do agree that my statements, to a large extent, are based on anecdotal information and are biased by the views of our current society but a male feminist? Give me a break. Well, now that I think of it, maybe I have become a little "soft in the brain" and should start thinking "clearly" again. However, one should never assume that the twenty words that I typed can ever provide you with a comprehensive representative sample of what and how I think. What any of this has to do with chess....I don't know. Peace.

+H Scott This is very touchy and contentious topic and it gets even worse if we started comparing between races.

+H Scott Your response being limited to about 20 words is irrelevant, as it's quite clear to read between the lines. Wrt "How?" When you say "Another excellent point" to mizofan who's mistakenly attempted to use exceptions to prove a rule. Also your comment of "Apparently since some fools [men] developed a society and many religions that are male dominated, some men still need to hold on to the lie" implies females at this elite level are mentally the equal of these elite men. On another topic: when you use phrases such as "arbitrary social constructs", such seems to indicate that you're a mangina / male feminist, and your use of "fools", implying men, further evidences my claim. Such a misandric term for men and your associated rationalizations are a clear red flag as to whom one is dealing with. Btw, I don't think your post offended anyone, it was simply disagreed with.

+Tracy Smith How? The response I gave was limited to about twenty words. It is difficult to include all of your feelings in so short an answer. In any case it does not matter. My opinion is my opinion no matter if it offends anyone. After reading my response again I fail to see where it was so contentious; but the we all have our opinions and we should be free to express them.

+H Scott You didn't "say" it, but it was implied.

+robertoppenheimer Ouch! Well, I never said that....exactly...LOL.

+H Scott So, you think that there are differences in all organs between men and women except for brain?

+mizofan Another excellent point. Apparently since some fools developed a society and many religions that are male dominated, some men still need to hold on to the lie. We men are certainly stronger and better athletes but when it comes to contests of the mind some of us need to stop confusing arbitrary social constructs with physical/mental realities.

+FraggingBard That sounds very reasonable both logically and from a statistical standpoint.

+StarReel Magnus was #1, ranked above all other male players too, aged 19. Polgar has beaten 11 male world champions: Magnus Carlsen, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov in rapid or classical chess. What does that tell us about male chess players?

+StarReel That there have been too few. Mainly because of people saying they can't play because of what's between their legs.

+StarReel Same thing Fischer beating Spassky told us about Russians.Nothing. Fischer was the stronger player then, Carlsen is the stronger player now. And given the increasing amount of female players, and females allowed to love the game like males can, we'll likely see even more amazing players.Which is what we want, right?

+StarReel More like what does that tell you about Magnus?