A reader brought to my attention an article on the website, http://www.chess.com, Ruth Haring: ‘Girls are bad at chess’ by JamieDelarosa (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/ruth-haring-girls-are-bad-at-chess?page=1).
The article begins: “(Moderators – I am new here, so I hope I do not break any rules. If this is in the wrong spot, or improperly formatted, please edit it. Thanks, Jamie)
This is the link to IWM Ruth Haring’s recent “Armchair Warrior” blog entry, entitled, “Girls are bad at chess.”
The thing is that the link takes the reader to this, the Armchair Warrior, blog. My blog!
The author of the chess.com article goes on to write:
“She wrote in her blog:
“I will leave it to others to judge just how good or bad girls are at chess and say only that I enjoy playing over games played by women, and in some cases, girls, because they are inferior to the games played by the best men chess players. I have also found enjoyment in watching women play golf and tennis even though they cannot compete with men.”
No, “She,” Ruth Haring, did NOT write that in her blog. I wrote that in MY blog!
Jamie continues writing as if Ruth Haring, President of the USCF, is the person responsible for the post on MY BLOG! Check it out and see for yourself. Once there you will see FOUR pages of comments on her article.
I first met Ruth decades ago when she was with NM “Wild” Bill Orton. I sent her this email:
A reader brought something he read on chess.com to my attention and you need to read it because the author has attributed something I wrote to you. I find this ironic because I wrote on my BaconLOG about chess.com accusing me of printing things without attribution, then apologized, saying they were wrong and I had not, then changed and said I did! (http://baconlog.blogspot.com/2011/04/chesscom-censorship.html) I no longer go to the site even though others have mentioned articles I might be interested in reading.
I figure you have contacts with someone at chess.com and can have them correct this egregious mistake.
Included was the entire chess.com article. Ruth replied:
“LOL, anyone who knows me knows I would never make such a statement !
I fired back with:
“Yes, Ruth…I know that, and you know that, but those at chess.com do not know that!
To which she replied:
I do not do a blog.
At this point I will admit to feeling somewhat exasperated, so I sent this:
To: Ruth Haring
Subject: Re: Chess.com thinks YOU are the Armchair Warrior!
“You need to click on the link and go to chess.com, Ruth. I mean, what part of, “This is the link to IWM Ruth Haring’s recent “Armchair Warrior” blog entry, entitled, “Girls are bad at chess.” is it you do not understand? This person obviously thinks MY blog is YOUR blog!
I mention this because you have a position and I don’t. I do not want ANYONE to mistake what I write for something written by YOU. And I am willing to wager my meager net worth that you feel more strongly about it than I!
After receiving the reply to this one I have come to wonder about the hypothetical wager…
“Hi again. I do have strong opinions, but the reason I do not blog is that I am too busy to keep up.
What do you suggest ? I could write something.
I view it as a statistical problem. When we get 50% women tournament players we can expect parity. I am working to encourage more women to play so as to increase the numbers, and thereby representation at the highest levels. If you take a random 4% of a population, you might find women tournament players outperform that random group.
I am flummoxed.