If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
And by the way, I've asked... Brad Thomson to explain how men are harmed or diminished by a Canadian women's championship and neither of them has even attempted to answer the question.
The reason I have not attempted to answer is simple, I did not suggest that men were harmed or diminished in the first place.
Please **NEVER** associate my name with anything that even remotely hints that I might be in favour of a chess tournament that excludes blacks. What we have been talking about here are chess events/tournaments which, while technically discriminatory on the basis of gender or age (two examples), do not harm or diminish another segment of the population. And by the way, I've asked Bob Armstrong and Brad Thomson to explain how men are harmed or diminished by a Canadian women's championship and neither of them has even attempted to answer the question.
Regarding Tom's wedding cake example, unfortunately there is no foolproof way to stop some people from using their ignorance and prejudice to hurt other people. That's the way the world is: wall-to-wall assholes with a minority of decent people sprinkled in. In the wall-to-wall assholes group I include those supposedly decent people who are willing to stand by and watch while others get hurt. Regarding the anti-gay baker(s), so long as my tax dollars are being used to support their business (roads, communication systems, water, hydro, police, etc.) they'd better damn well serve that gay couple, politely and without pissing in their cake. Otherwise they can stick their business out in the bush where it would only be accessible via a three day portage.
P.S. That's why we have laws to try to limit the damage that the assholes do to others!!
Sorry Peter, I've removed that reference. I was only meaning you were in agreement with the 2nd part of Tom's argument, being that you would be against any government-run event excluding or discriminating against any particular group. But someone could read it the wrong way and think I meant you were in agreement with ALL of Tom's arguments, which you've made clear that you are not.
And I applaud you for your views, although I think Tom is right that it can become a proverbial case of leading a horse to water AND trying to make the horse drink. That's why I asked that philosophical question.
I seem to remember an episode of Star Trek: Next Generation where Captain Picard is explaining 24th-century human civilization to some alien, and he makes mention that all prejudices and biases have been eliminated and human vs. human wars were a thing of the past. If that's really what was written, it seems to me a very naive view of where humans are headed. I very much doubt that such can ever be accomplished in this physical universe where we are so limited in what we can do. But we might be heading for some kind of singularity, because AI and robots are going to drastically change society in the sense of taking away all the low-level jobs that keep many people working. And most of those people working those jobs happen to be black.
In terms of the chess events, let's hypothesize for a moment. Suppose that for some reason, women's chess and only women's chess attracted spectators by the millions, even those who don't themselves play chess. And at the same time, men's chess and even open chess continued to be spurned by those millions of spectators. Then we'd have a real mess on our hands: organizers and sponsors would only be supporting women's chess in terms of lucrative championships and so on. This would be harmful to males as their paydays for winning their own events would be relatively tiny. But the law of supply and demand takes over and there's really nothing to be done about it. It may seem prejudicial and sexist, but it's what the market demands (in this hypothetical scenario).
We do have something like that right now: beauty contests. Women who are blessed with both great natural looks and with decent personalities (and an honest desire for world peace! lol) can win huge prize amounts on just that basis. Men are of course excluded from these events, although they do have their own bodybuilding contests (which require a lot more work). Is this ok? I think so, and most of us accept it because... it's market supply and demand. Heck, Donald Trump made money in it, so it must be good, right?
Perhaps a better example is pro tennis. Just in the last decade or two, women pushed for and were granted equal pay for winning the same major events as their male counterparts. The women don't have to work as hard (best of 3 sets to decide matches versus best of 5 sets for the men). But in the end it must have come down to supply and demand: the sponsors and organizers must have accepted that it was better to pay the women equally than to lose women's events altogether via a strike or boycott. But I am very certain that if spectator interest in and attendance of women's tennis lagged the same for men's tennis by some huge amount, women would not have been granted such equality. And most of us would accept that as being ok, given the market preference.
A final example is the system of athletic scholarships in the U.S. university system (and in Canada to a lesser degree). Is it acceptable that athletically blessed individuals get their education paid for while equally deserving but non-athletic students have to pay their own way? It has been going on for a long time, so it must be acceptable. Every local market seems to place great importance on the relative strength of their university teams. Thus market supply and demand drives this discrimination forward into the realm of acceptability.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tom,
In communities, there is often a grey zone between the 'public' and the 'private', and it is here that the private choice of discrimination manifests itself as 'bullying', 'social out-casting', 'segregation' or 'ghettoizing', all of which are unfair to minorities. The free-market has its limitations in the case of small minorities, and worse, minorities can be subjected to 'legal bashing' by a democratically elected majority (which also appoints like-minded judges). As a libertarian would suggest, decorating your cake in a certain way (or not) is a private prerogative, but denying your cakes to a profiled group is not. Let us cherish our rights as private individuals, but let us also remember that no man, however private, is an island...and protecting the weak and the minorities is not antithetical to democracy.
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Tuesday, 3rd January, 2017, 03:02 PM.
It is often the case that minorities are entitled to do certain things that majorities are not. And this may be part of the problem. For example, I grew up in the Toronto golfing community. There was a club where ONLY women were allowed to join. Of course nobody objected then, nor would anyone object today. There was at least one club where ONLY Jewish people were allowed to join. Of course nobody objected then, nor would anyone object today.
But what if we try ONLY men? ONLY caucasians? Nope. Not allowed.
Automatic resentment from the majority towards the minorities results. For we seem to have a series of double-standards.
So what do we do? Simple, we give up on racism, we give up on sexism. We are all people and we should all play together as one. No more ONLY situations, not from the majority and not from the minorities.
Not at the level of golf clubs or chess tournaments and not at the community level either. Nowhere.
Brad,
While it could be considered unfair to have a minority ONLY entity, it would be quite appropriate to create an entity where members of the minority are in a majority, just as in the default situation members of the majority are almost always in a majority. Now female chess players are a minority among all chess players, and so if someone creates a tournament, a club, an association or whatever where wearing of pink shoes is mandatory, it would not be unfair at all...
Tom,
In communities, there is often a grey zone between the 'public' and the 'private', and it is here that the private choice of discrimination manifests itself as 'bullying', 'social out-casting', 'segregation' or 'ghettoizing', all of which are unfair to minorities. The free-market has its limitations in the case of small minorities, and worse, minorities can be subjected to 'legal bashing' by a democratically elected majority (which also appoints like-minded judges). As a libertarian would suggest, decorating your cake in a certain way (or not) is a private prerogative, but denying your cakes to a profiled group is not. Let us cherish our rights as private individuals, but let us also remember that no man, however private, is an island...and protecting the weak and the minorities is not antithetical to democracy.
What an excellent post ! Thank you.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Brad,
While it could be considered unfair to have a minority ONLY entity, it would be quite appropriate to create an entity where members of the minority are in a majority, just as in the default situation members of the majority are almost always in a majority. Now female chess players are a minority among all chess players, and so if someone creates a tournament, a club, an association or whatever where wearing of pink shoes is mandatory, it would not be unfair at all...
What then if Caucasians were a minority of chess players in Canada (they may be now, I do not know) and just like the women wanted to hold their own exclusive chess event? Personally I would deem this to be racist, just as I deem events that refuse to allow males to play to be sexist. And I would say this whether they were private or public events.
It is often the case that minorities are entitled to do certain things that majorities are not. And this may be part of the problem. For example, I grew up in the Toronto golfing community. There was a club where ONLY women were allowed to join. Of course nobody objected then, nor would anyone object today. There was at least one club where ONLY Jewish people were allowed to join. Of course nobody objected then, nor would anyone object today.
But what if we try ONLY men? ONLY caucasians? Nope. Not allowed.
Automatic resentment from the majority towards the minorities results. For we seem to have a series of double-standards.
So what do we do? Simple, we give up on racism, we give up on sexism. We are all people and we should all play together as one. No more ONLY situations, not from the majority and not from the minorities.
Not at the of golf clubs or chess tournaments and not at the community level either. Nowhere.
Holy crap !! Are you kidding us? After all the decades and decades that wasp-only golf clubs, all across Canada, discriminated against minorities (and women by, among other things, restricting their playing time) by refusing to accept them as members, and you've got the nerve to whine because some minorities (and women) have established their own clubs??
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
The reason I have not attempted to answer is simple, I did not suggest that men were harmed or diminished in the first place.
Then how is it that you think a female-only tournament is sexist?
sex·ismˈsekˌsizəm/noun
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
synonyms:sexual discrimination,*chauvinism,*gender prejudice,*gender bias"your hiring practices have generated numerous complaints about sexism"
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Then how is it that you think a female-only tournament is sexist?
In my opinion, if you say to someone that they cannot play in a chess tournament because they are male, or, if you say to someone that they cannot play in a chess tournament because they are female, you have acted in a sexist manner.
I think it is really hilarious that people would consider that a girl from an ethnic minority whose parents make $200K between them, and can now have lessons, trips, etc. is somehow disadvantaged in chess vs a Caucasian boy whose parents make $50K. Western society, imo, is mostly class (i.e. income) - based not sex-based nor ethnicity-based. If you want to have a special class of tournament, have it for kids whose parents don't have much money.
You can be sure that the golf club and the baker won't be serving you if you don't have the money to pay them, no matter who you are. As a bonus, this will probably help explain why Trump won. ;-)
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
My point was that the hypothetical tournament you postulate could be considered quite appropriate if it was restricted to say...Republican party card holders only...
Thanks, Paul. You point out that discrimination, in a multitude of forms (some of which are highly toxic for any society that wishes for a healthy existence), is part of everyday life and a very complex issue. I hope I haven't oversimplified your remarks. In any event, I agree with you. It's a fascinating topic for discussion. :)
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Gentlemen, you leave me no choice but to rob Peter to pay Paul. Please forgive me for being so careless with my poorly worded explanations of my own positions. Allow me to attempt to be precise.
I do not believe it is right to tell someone who wants to play in a chess tournament that they cannot do so because of their gender.
I see nothing wrong with telling someone who wants to play in a chess tournament that they cannot do so because of their age.
Both discriminate, yes. Both are discriminatory, yes. But one is sexist and the other is not. Therefore, please explain to me why you bring up the analogy? It is no argument, just an equivocation.
Perhaps I could summarize our respective positions as follows:
You: gender-specific tournaments are sexist and therefore not acceptable.
Me: gender-specific tournaments are technically sexist and therefore we should have a close look to see what harm, if any, is being done before we make a decision on acceptability.
I'm not going to change your mind, nor you mine. So......have a nice day. :)
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Tweet
Comment