From: rodin@acs.bu.edu (luis del)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess psychology
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:55:31 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: rodin@acs.bu.edu



	Is the psychology of a chessman, that of an anti-social? Or at least,     has  the chessman per se has sacrificed his sociability, for the solace and concentration of Chess? I know there shall never be a specific answer, but I was struck by the underlying nerdishness of the rec.games.chess
.    Do not get me wrong, when it comes to the analysis of chess this newsgroup is indispensible. But every so often, I sense a lack of sense of humor and a general dryness about the articles--Specially when the articles deviate from strict analysis  of the chess board. I am sorry I can't name specifics, but the feeling I get is that if these writers were to talk to a woman in a bar, she would turn away.
     Ergo we have all these rejected social misfits, making nudity jokes about Fischer playing Polgar.These men are just transfering their life's social failure which has led then to a feeling of sexual inferiority. Thus in this newsgroup, where instead of a performer, one can be the writer and director, the social misfit as the director get to order Polgar to disrobe. Thus massive doses of repressed sexuality are washed away by a simpl and sphomoric joke.
    It would appear that the match was the issue, but far too often it was her sex, not her ability, which led to so much contention. Further Fischer a man known for getting away with every anti social antic because he is simply great, becomes the alter ego of the anti social: his redemption, his hero.
  by bringing all this deductions together we can see that a lot of writers in the newsgroup are just masking their sexual and social insecurities. By silently injecting  them into the legitimate discussion of chess. In my experience men joke about sex when it has become either inadequate or scarce. Therefore my supposition is that if these men were having fulfilling sex, maybe even just plain sex, then sex itself would not have been injected in to the chess equation.
	
	Further I was amazed when I did my satiric piece some time ago, that of all the people who wrote me neagtive comment 8/9 were computer majors. And we all know of the reputation computer major have. Although frankly it may be ill-founded, for it may just be that the layman is scared of the knowledge and power persons who are adroit in computers have, I was amazed that all the negative comments demmanded from me not only rigity of opinion and creed but of form. I.E. if you want to make a point just say it! 



Thus  the anti social after being subjected to much communicative failure in life, has rationalized that the  personality of the individual in which he or she wishes to express himself is secondary. This is ofcourse is the first step towards sexual inadequacy.

	This is my opinion. I know some will get offended. Some will say, " Join the Psychology newsgroup and leave me alone." Others will say, " you ar ethe sexually represed.  You are the nerd, you are the misfit," And so on and so on.  But I am reallly interested to find the  answer to my original question. Because if I desire to be a good player, then I should follow the proper path to achieve mental optimality, with in the game of chess.
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess