She's a great chess player but she's never been a World Champion. There's no need to embelish her story. She's currently training to become a surgeon at University of Missouri School of Medicine.
I think that's an honest mistake. She was awarded the Women's Grandmaster title and the International Master which is confusing unless you look at the standards. It's arguably a world title holder? Maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsa_Derakhshani
Grandmaster just means you have reached a certain elo and have completed certain requirements (win a number of games, against certain opponents etc), and won a certain number of competitions. There are around 2000 current grandmasters.
World champion is much much more selective, meaning literally winning the world championship.
Don’t get me wrong, grandmaster is incredibly prestigious, but is much more “common” than world champion.
(International Master is the rank below grandmaster).
For clarification, the Women's Grandmaster and International titles are conferred after a certain level of achievement overall in one's career. There is no limit to the number of people who can have those titles. I feel like if you use a phrase like "world title holder" there's an implication that such a world title is like "champion of whatever" and is only held by one person at a time (like a "World Champion(ship title)").
She holds the title International Master, so I guess OP thought that's the same as World Champion? But she's currently ranked 6365th of active players.
Was thinking as i read this post "isnt magnus the defacto world champ? Or hasnt he been for years now?"
Ding Liren is the current human "open" world champion, but there is also a women's world championship, currently held by Ju Wenjun. Plus there is a world junior championship, world rapid championship, world blitz, etc. Magnus is probably still the world's best human player, but he decided to drop out of the WC cycle because he got tired of winning it so often, basically.
The strongest chessplaying entities in the world are entirely machines, which have surpassed humans by enormous and uncrossable margins. The top engine for the past few years has been whatever the latest version of Stockfish is. The top human players spend enormous amounts of time studying machine analysis of various openings and game positions.
Ah yes, the two genders: human and woman.
Chess has always been overwhelmingly male. In the old days there were separate men's tournaments and women's tournaments. That changed in the 1980s when Susan Polgar was by far the strongest female player in Hungary. She didn't have any serious opposition in women's tournaments there, and wasn't allowed to enter men's tournaments, so she started a big fight. The result was that men's tournaments were abolished and they are now "open" tournaments that anyone can play in, though they are still overwhelmingly male. Women's events exist basically so that female players don't have to endure the gauntlet of a socially inept nerd sausage fest in order to play chess.
For a while there was also something called "centaur" tournaments, where a centaur was a human player assisted by a computer. The idea was that the computer could outcalculate humans, but humans still had better strategic judgment, so a human-computer team could outperform either member individually. After a while though, computers became strong enough that human interference just made them play worse. The current strongest chess tournament in the world is called TCEC (Top Chess Engine Championship, tcec-chess.com) and it is always running, 24/7/365 unless something happens. Some really incredible games have come out of it.
Thats fair, thanks for explaining!
Iran playing checkers
Funny, when I tried that I tripped.
How?
Sounds like a checkmate
Impressive
Moving that pawn as an opening weakens the king.
that's not the pawn
You might have noticed the other comment from yesterday already correcting me.
sorry, no, probably blocked
Oooooooohhh yes fuck hijabs and Islam
Nah, just fuck theocracies.
Fuck hijabs and Islam.
Fuck christofascists and tradwives.
Fuck hindu nationalists and caste systems.
Fuck any and every religion that insists they need to impose their ways on others to be in good favor with their God. Fuck them in any and every form.
Women can choose to wear a hijab, just like women can choose to be a stay at home parent, out of their free will. But pressuring them one way or the other is cringe.
Choosing to wear a hijab is totally cool, as long as it's not because of a religion.
Religion uses coercion and indoctrination to control people.
It doesn't matter if it's state sanctioned or not: the social contract imposed by religion is violence. It doesn't matter if it's the government threatening jail time or your friends threatening social isolation. It's coercive.
And you can't distinguish between those who do it willingly and those who are forced: so a civil society can permit neither.
I grew up in a sect that I like to often describe as Beer Drinkin' Christianity because it's really chill about most things including homosexuality and gender. It wasn't until I had grown out of it and basically gone full agnostic that I really realized how coercive even my version of religion had been. I could go on and on but the funniest thing to me was realizing during an Abnormal Psychology 101 course in college that my Church Camp basically used every last technique they listed for brain washing. It was a fun camp and not scary in any way but yet extremely manipulative in a subversive way.
I similarly left Christianity from a far more fundamentalist sect and yes: the coercion is significant on all levels. It's scary once you realize what's been going on.
It's an incredibly controlling form of human culture and not given its due wariness.
Yeah I told my partner about some of the stuff that goes on and her first thought was 'they shouldn't allow kids in religion until they're old enough to decide for themselves'.
It's the correct decision that will never happen - Children have no rights^+^ in modern society.
Any zealous religious parent being told they can't bring up their child in their religion would throw an absolute shitfit.
^+^The only "right" of a child is framed in terms of parental responsibilities.
Hijab is supposed to be voluntary under Islamic scripture. Islam does not include anything about having to impose anything on others. Attempting to downvote you results in a server error.
And Christians are supposed to give up all early possessions, renounce sex and serve God all their days.
What's your point? Theory means fuck all.
Religions are coercive social structures. You cannot distinguish those doing it willingly from those corrected into "proper behavior". As such a civil society can permit neither.
Re: downvotes - no idea why it's not working, but your anger is obvious enough without it
Christians are not obligated to give up sex or “all early possessions”. At most they’re just obligated to give up personal trinkets during lent and fund the church. My point is that there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.
People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means. Islam is just an excuse. There are many atheists who use their moral code instead.
To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.
all earthly possessions
Matthew 6:19-34 and Luke 18:22-25
Pretty unequivocal: give up everything and serve God.
there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.
The fuck there isn't. Coercion in Christian sects is rampant. Your parents finding out you're not a virgin will have you disowned in plenty of Christian households.
People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means
And people who want to murder will do it regardless of means. That doesn't allow us to throw up our hands and let murder cults exist. Instead we extirpate them, outlaw them, stamp them out both legally and culturally.
To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.
Pragmatically speaking this is, unfortunately, the best we can hope for. I'm not talking about pragmatics here though: I'm talking about fundamentals. Theory. What is a truly polite society?
It's not one where religious coercion is allowed to fester.
That's a pretty bad misreading. These are about how material accretion is not to be valued too much, especially in comparison to kindness and serving God. (The latter story also says "If you wish to be perfect", not "you must do this to get there".)
Your parents finding out you're not a virgin will have you disowned in plenty of Christian households.
That's sad to hear. Even as an agnostic, I know nicer Christian sects.
That doesn't allow us to throw up our hands and let murder cults exist.
Most people of faith aren't those radical maniacs you see on ye olde telly. Radical [blank]s exist in nearly every field you can imagine, and since they're radical, they're gonna be vocal and take over all your anger-driven feed. To assert that all religions fester and allow hate simply isn't true. Radicals will turn to everything they can find to justify their stupid beliefs.
It's not a misreading at all. In many fundamentalist sects (such as the one I left) that's the dogmatic truth of those verses.
Everything material is sinful and holding you back.
I have lived with and continue to love many religious people - that does not make them rational. That does not make their religious beliefs OK. With all the love in their hearts they still participate in evil and coercive control of others. They are particularly dangerous in that they believe in their heart of hearts that they are doing the right thing.
This is the reality of religion: it is dangerous, coercive, self propagating brain washing that forces people into shape. It creates panopticons. Window twitching neighbors that snitch and shun.
This is true of all religion. In Christianity it's true of southern baptist and Lutheran's and Christian scientists and episcopalians and Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th day Adventists and Mormons and Catholics and Orthodox and ...
I am truly horrified by what you had to endure. I understand, or at least think I may understand, why you feel this way. However, your experience is not universal to all people of faith.
Religion is very much compatible with day-to-day rationality, and most religions do not believe that one has to forsake everything; in fact, that fundamentalist sect still owns things, and they're just making up an excuse to steal. Propagating beliefs themselves is not coercive control; coercive control is coercive control.
It's just that since religion used to be universal, old filth found their justification in what they know and created their existing communities of control. That does not mean religion always lends itself towards more coercion. Belief in a greater purpose is a great rationale to endure and go on to create astonishing projects.
Can anybody with more knowledge about this explain this? I don't know much about islam but i thought husbands and/or fathers would force women to wear them?
It's a complex issue, but think of it like backwards fundamentalist Christians going ballistic over women (especially their daughters) wearing anything more revealing than a sweater. That kind of familial coercion is couched in religious terms and springs from religious values, but is not, strictly speaking, fundamental (ha) to the religion itself.
The root of the thing is that Islamic teachings require practitioners to dress modestly.
Interpretations of this range from "cover your sex bits" to "don't show an inch of skin to anybody except your husband".
While its true there are outliers like fundamentalists who go to extremes and progressives who deny many rules, there are four major schools in (Sunni) Islamic law that the majority of people follow and they all take at the very least the ruling that the covering for women is everything except her face, hands and feet - when among men who she legally can marry ("mahram").
No, it is obligatory according to the major schools of law in Islam, which the manority follow.
Does it make a difference that it's under the section "Prescribed Prayers"? Because the New Testament has a similar rule written in it that women have to cover their heads while praying.
Its under a subsection on "modesty". But I don't know why it's under the section on prayer.
They are general rules on clothing, you can look up "awra for women" to get at the same stuff.
Indeed
Can anyone point me to one example of a woman electing to wear a hijab or bonnet that wasn’t coerced by religion?
She's a great chess player but she's never been a World Champion. There's no need to embelish her story. She's currently training to become a surgeon at University of Missouri School of Medicine.
I think that's an honest mistake. She was awarded the Women's Grandmaster title and the International Master which is confusing unless you look at the standards. It's arguably a world title holder? Maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsa_Derakhshani
Grandmaster just means you have reached a certain elo and have completed certain requirements (win a number of games, against certain opponents etc), and won a certain number of competitions. There are around 2000 current grandmasters.
World champion is much much more selective, meaning literally winning the world championship.
Don’t get me wrong, grandmaster is incredibly prestigious, but is much more “common” than world champion.
(International Master is the rank below grandmaster).
For clarification, the Women's Grandmaster and International titles are conferred after a certain level of achievement overall in one's career. There is no limit to the number of people who can have those titles. I feel like if you use a phrase like "world title holder" there's an implication that such a world title is like "champion of whatever" and is only held by one person at a time (like a "World Champion(ship title)").
She holds the title International Master, so I guess OP thought that's the same as World Champion? But she's currently ranked 6365th of active players.
Was thinking as i read this post "isnt magnus the defacto world champ? Or hasnt he been for years now?"
Ding Liren is the current human "open" world champion, but there is also a women's world championship, currently held by Ju Wenjun. Plus there is a world junior championship, world rapid championship, world blitz, etc. Magnus is probably still the world's best human player, but he decided to drop out of the WC cycle because he got tired of winning it so often, basically.
The strongest chessplaying entities in the world are entirely machines, which have surpassed humans by enormous and uncrossable margins. The top engine for the past few years has been whatever the latest version of Stockfish is. The top human players spend enormous amounts of time studying machine analysis of various openings and game positions.
Ah yes, the two genders: human and woman.
Chess has always been overwhelmingly male. In the old days there were separate men's tournaments and women's tournaments. That changed in the 1980s when Susan Polgar was by far the strongest female player in Hungary. She didn't have any serious opposition in women's tournaments there, and wasn't allowed to enter men's tournaments, so she started a big fight. The result was that men's tournaments were abolished and they are now "open" tournaments that anyone can play in, though they are still overwhelmingly male. Women's events exist basically so that female players don't have to endure the gauntlet of a socially inept nerd sausage fest in order to play chess.
For a while there was also something called "centaur" tournaments, where a centaur was a human player assisted by a computer. The idea was that the computer could outcalculate humans, but humans still had better strategic judgment, so a human-computer team could outperform either member individually. After a while though, computers became strong enough that human interference just made them play worse. The current strongest chess tournament in the world is called TCEC (Top Chess Engine Championship, tcec-chess.com) and it is always running, 24/7/365 unless something happens. Some really incredible games have come out of it.
Thats fair, thanks for explaining!
Iran playing checkers
Funny, when I tried that I tripped.
How?
Sounds like a checkmate
Impressive
Moving that pawn as an opening weakens the king.that's not the pawn
You might have noticed the other comment from yesterday already correcting me.
sorry, no, probably blocked
Oooooooohhh yes fuck hijabs and Islam
Nah, just fuck theocracies.
Fuck hijabs and Islam.
Fuck christofascists and tradwives.
Fuck hindu nationalists and caste systems.
Fuck any and every religion that insists they need to impose their ways on others to be in good favor with their God. Fuck them in any and every form.
Women can choose to wear a hijab, just like women can choose to be a stay at home parent, out of their free will. But pressuring them one way or the other is cringe.
Choosing to wear a hijab is totally cool, as long as it's not because of a religion.
Religion uses coercion and indoctrination to control people.
It doesn't matter if it's state sanctioned or not: the social contract imposed by religion is violence. It doesn't matter if it's the government threatening jail time or your friends threatening social isolation. It's coercive.
And you can't distinguish between those who do it willingly and those who are forced: so a civil society can permit neither.
I grew up in a sect that I like to often describe as Beer Drinkin' Christianity because it's really chill about most things including homosexuality and gender. It wasn't until I had grown out of it and basically gone full agnostic that I really realized how coercive even my version of religion had been. I could go on and on but the funniest thing to me was realizing during an Abnormal Psychology 101 course in college that my Church Camp basically used every last technique they listed for brain washing. It was a fun camp and not scary in any way but yet extremely manipulative in a subversive way.
I similarly left Christianity from a far more fundamentalist sect and yes: the coercion is significant on all levels. It's scary once you realize what's been going on.
It's an incredibly controlling form of human culture and not given its due wariness.
Yeah I told my partner about some of the stuff that goes on and her first thought was 'they shouldn't allow kids in religion until they're old enough to decide for themselves'.
It's the correct decision that will never happen - Children have no rights^+^ in modern society.
Any zealous religious parent being told they can't bring up their child in their religion would throw an absolute shitfit.
^+^The only "right" of a child is framed in terms of parental responsibilities.
Hijab is supposed to be voluntary under Islamic scripture. Islam does not include anything about having to impose anything on others. Attempting to downvote you results in a server error.
And Christians are supposed to give up all early possessions, renounce sex and serve God all their days.
What's your point? Theory means fuck all.
Religions are coercive social structures. You cannot distinguish those doing it willingly from those corrected into "proper behavior". As such a civil society can permit neither.
Re: downvotes - no idea why it's not working, but your anger is obvious enough without it
Christians are not obligated to give up sex or “all early possessions”. At most they’re just obligated to give up personal trinkets during lent and fund the church. My point is that there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.
People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means. Islam is just an excuse. There are many atheists who use their moral code instead.
To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.
Matthew 6:19-34 and Luke 18:22-25
Pretty unequivocal: give up everything and serve God.
The fuck there isn't. Coercion in Christian sects is rampant. Your parents finding out you're not a virgin will have you disowned in plenty of Christian households.
And people who want to murder will do it regardless of means. That doesn't allow us to throw up our hands and let murder cults exist. Instead we extirpate them, outlaw them, stamp them out both legally and culturally.
Pragmatically speaking this is, unfortunately, the best we can hope for. I'm not talking about pragmatics here though: I'm talking about fundamentals. Theory. What is a truly polite society?
It's not one where religious coercion is allowed to fester.
That's a pretty bad misreading. These are about how material accretion is not to be valued too much, especially in comparison to kindness and serving God. (The latter story also says "If you wish to be perfect", not "you must do this to get there".)
That's sad to hear. Even as an agnostic, I know nicer Christian sects.
Most people of faith aren't those radical maniacs you see on ye olde telly. Radical [blank]s exist in nearly every field you can imagine, and since they're radical, they're gonna be vocal and take over all your anger-driven feed. To assert that all religions fester and allow hate simply isn't true. Radicals will turn to everything they can find to justify their stupid beliefs.
It's not a misreading at all. In many fundamentalist sects (such as the one I left) that's the dogmatic truth of those verses.
Everything material is sinful and holding you back.
I have lived with and continue to love many religious people - that does not make them rational. That does not make their religious beliefs OK. With all the love in their hearts they still participate in evil and coercive control of others. They are particularly dangerous in that they believe in their heart of hearts that they are doing the right thing.
This is the reality of religion: it is dangerous, coercive, self propagating brain washing that forces people into shape. It creates panopticons. Window twitching neighbors that snitch and shun.
This is true of all religion. In Christianity it's true of southern baptist and Lutheran's and Christian scientists and episcopalians and Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th day Adventists and Mormons and Catholics and Orthodox and ...
I am truly horrified by what you had to endure. I understand, or at least think I may understand, why you feel this way. However, your experience is not universal to all people of faith.
Religion is very much compatible with day-to-day rationality, and most religions do not believe that one has to forsake everything; in fact, that fundamentalist sect still owns things, and they're just making up an excuse to steal. Propagating beliefs themselves is not coercive control; coercive control is coercive control.
It's just that since religion used to be universal, old filth found their justification in what they know and created their existing communities of control. That does not mean religion always lends itself towards more coercion. Belief in a greater purpose is a great rationale to endure and go on to create astonishing projects.
Can anybody with more knowledge about this explain this? I don't know much about islam but i thought husbands and/or fathers would force women to wear them?
It's a complex issue, but think of it like backwards fundamentalist Christians going ballistic over women (especially their daughters) wearing anything more revealing than a sweater. That kind of familial coercion is couched in religious terms and springs from religious values, but is not, strictly speaking, fundamental (ha) to the religion itself.
The root of the thing is that Islamic teachings require practitioners to dress modestly.
Interpretations of this range from "cover your sex bits" to "don't show an inch of skin to anybody except your husband".
While its true there are outliers like fundamentalists who go to extremes and progressives who deny many rules, there are four major schools in (Sunni) Islamic law that the majority of people follow and they all take at the very least the ruling that the covering for women is everything except her face, hands and feet - when among men who she legally can marry ("mahram").
No, it is obligatory according to the major schools of law in Islam, which the manority follow.
Here's the section from Encyclopedia of Islamic law: a compendium of the views of the major schools by Laleh Bakhtiar (archive: https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofis0000bakh/page/70/mode/2up )
Ooh, thanks.
Does it make a difference that it's under the section "Prescribed Prayers"? Because the New Testament has a similar rule written in it that women have to cover their heads while praying.
Its under a subsection on "modesty". But I don't know why it's under the section on prayer.
They are general rules on clothing, you can look up "awra for women" to get at the same stuff.
Indeed
Can anyone point me to one example of a woman electing to wear a hijab or bonnet that wasn’t coerced by religion?