Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Approximately, what would be the total cost to host the WWCC here in Canada?

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Neil wrote:

Approximately, what would be the total cost to host the WWCC here in Canada?

$450k in prizes - 20% of that paid by FIDE. Hall rental, officials, dignitaries, DGT boards, live transmission, etc.
Players pay their own expenses (hotel, transport, food).

I would say you're looking at somewhere between $500k and $1 million to run such an event.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

without having to put up with a bunch of assholes.

What does it take to be banned from this forum, or at least suspended?

Earlier I say I think Trump will win and I am insulted. Now, I say I think female-specific chess events are sexist, a view held by many people, lots of whom are female, and I get this?

Moderator, do your job.

Mr. Bevand, if your moderator will not do a better job, find another one.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

What does it take to be banned from this forum, or at least suspended?

Earlier I say I think Trump will win and I am insulted. Now, I say I think female-specific chess events are sexist, a view held by many people, lots of whom are female, and I get this?

Moderator, do your job.

Mr. Bevand, if your moderator will not do a better job, find another one.

I meant "assholes" in a generic sense; i.e. all men. However, I did not make that clear in my post so I apologize to you and Bob for leaving you with the impression that I was referring only to the two of you. The rest of my remarks stand.

In all the years that this discussion (i.e. interfering, paternalistic males wanting to control how women enjoy playing chess) has been taking place on ChessTalk, not once do I recall a women voicing her opinion. You say you know lots of women who agree with you. Let's hear from one.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Thank you for your apology. I accept it. Let this be a lesson to others who insult indiscriminately and without apology or even admission of guilt.

With respect to your point, of course anyone can run a MALES ONLY event if they want to. Where you and I differ is that I would deem this to be sexist and you would not. (It would be a double standard if you accepted female only events but not male only.)

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Yup, and it's sad to see of the total CFC members only 6% are female.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

...

With respect to your point, of course anyone can run a MALES ONLY event if they want to. Where you and I differ is that I would deem this to be sexist and you would not. (It would be a double standard if you accepted female only events but not male only.)

You seem to have a very black-and-white approach to these things. To my way of thinking, the circumstances, the nuances, are critical in determining whether something falls under an 'ist' category. Something is sexist, imo, if one of the sexes is excluded from participating in a way that is deliberately, or even unwittingly, prejudicial and harmful. For example, I wouldn't have a problem (depending on the exact circumstances, of course) with a U.S. Men's Open Chess Championship. I **would** have a problem with a U.S. Open Chess Championship - No Women Allowed. Clearly the latter event would be sexist.

What specifically is it that you and Bob Armstrong find so objectionable about women-only chess events? How are men being harmed by women-only events? And why is it only women-only events that you and Bob are fixated on? I don't hear you griping that junior or senior events, for example, exclude large segments of the chess playing population. Sorry Brad and Bob, but unless you're able to make a more compelling case for opposing women-only events then, imo, your obsession is a little bit weird.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Thank you for your apology. I accept it. Let this be a lesson to others who insult indiscriminately and without apology or even admission of guilt.

With respect to your point, of course anyone can run a MALES ONLY event if they want to. Where you and I differ is that I would deem this to be sexist and you would not. (It would be a double standard if you accepted female only events but not male only.)

Brad, I think you are still being called an a-hole, it's just that you are being grouped in with all men.

I agree with Peter's view that men don't need to be interfering in what women or organizers want to do with respect to chess.

The whole point is that individual organizers can decide what kind of tournament they want to run. Is it age discrimination every time someone organizes a youth chess event with large prizes? Should Jean Hebert sue to try and qualify to get a piece of those prizes? Brad, if your first thought about that is that youth chess events must exclude older players to give the younger learning players a chance to win prizes, well, can't that same logic apply to women's only events? Not that women are inherently weaker at chess than men (although Nigel Short would disagree there), BUT in actual practice they are because there's so few of them who as young girls dedicate the time and resources to chess that many more young boys do. It becomes a simple numbers game, where some individual women can do well, but collectively women are doing poorly.

So if someone wants to organize a women's only event to give the women a chance at large prizes, just be fine with it and don't be calling it sexist.

(I wonder, Brad, if you would still consider it sexist if a women's only event were organized and run only by women?)

And any organizer is free to limit entrance to tournaments in any way s/he pleases. In a way, this is what is going on with class sections in tournaments. The organizer may have created those sections in order to offer each group of players a chance to win big prizes. The Millionaire Chess Open was a prime example of that. Nobody is accusing that organizer of any "-ism" against higher rated players. The only criticism we do see sometimes is that too much entry fees are going towards lower class section prizes, but again, this is the organizer's prerogative.

So if we can accept that class sections are perfectly fine and are the organizer's prerogative, then this same view should apply to women's only events.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

What specifically is it that you and Bob Armstrong find so objectionable about women-only chess events?

Hi Peter:

Your comments about my position on this seem to show that you did not read, or read carefully, my post above of Dec. 22 @3:57 PM.

Would you mind reviewing it first, and then just address my position - it is not always clear that Brad and I are holding exactly identical positions (He would have to advise if he agrees totally with the post I have referred you back to).

Thanks.

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Hi Peter:

Your comments about my position on this seem to show that you did not read, or read carefully, my post above of Dec. 22 @3:57 PM.

Would you mind reviewing it first, and then just address my position - it is not always clear that Brad and I are holding exactly identical positions (He would have to advise if he agrees totally with the post I have referred you back to).

Thanks.

Bob A

Hi Bob. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and your family. So, you say you're opposed to the parallel system of women's titles but not to women-only tournaments, etc. It seems to me that there was a time when you weren't happy about women-only events but perhaps my memory fails me (again :( ). Anyway, I don't really see a significant difference between being anti women-only events and anti women-only titles. The women's titles are just markers along the path of achievement in chess. They're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows that a wgm title is a recognition of significant accomplishment, but not quite as significant as that recognized by the full gm title. Each female chessplayer is perfectly capable of determining, on her own and without 'help' from you and Brad, what her aspirations are with respect to chess. If an individual female is satisfied with a wgm or wim title, why the heck shouldn't she be? They are accomplishments that merit respect for the achievers. Who the hell do some men think they are to denigrate those accomplishments?

I read your definition of bloviate in another thread. It made me realize how much I want to 'resign' from this thread.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Hi Bob. ....So, you say you're opposed to the parallel system of women's titles but not to women-only tournaments, etc. .... Anyway, I don't really see a significant difference between being anti women-only events and anti women-only titles. The women's titles are just markers along the path of achievement in chess. They're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows that a wgm title is a recognition of significant accomplishment, but not quite as significant as that recognized by the full gm title. Each female chessplayer is perfectly capable of determining, on her own and without 'help' from you and Brad, what her aspirations are with respect to chess. If an individual female is satisfied with a wgm or wim title, why the heck shouldn't she be? They are accomplishments that merit respect for the achievers. Who the hell do some men think they are to denigrate those accomplishments?

I read your definition of bloviate in another thread. It made me realize how much I want to 'resign' from this thread.

Hi Peter:

Thanks for the good wishes.

As to Ct & bloviate, I do find there are pearls among the chaff, so long as on a cost benefit analysis, you feel you are winning, for you. I am satisfied with the overall return to me for participating in Ct (I do not pursue all threads)

My position on why the continued existence of a women's parallel system is now retarding women's quicker advancement in "open chess":

[Note: My analysis can be as good as any woman on this women's issue; what I am NOT doing (And you repeatedly charge me with it in your every post, no matter how many times I make the point that I am not doing it) is TELLING them what to do; rather I am asking, politely, if THEY are discussing WHAT TO DO on this issue, to please include my idea in the discussion; I am stating to them as comment on my proposal, that my position is reasonable and chess evidence-based, or at the very least, worth discussing.]

1. Women did not receive equal treatment historically re chess.

2. The parallel but separate women-only "system", with women's titles, initially was good; an incubator was needed to help promote women's chess when it was difficult for them participate in open chess, in the early stages. They could get a passion for chess, before getting turned off by participation in the male-dominated chess culture of the times. With the passion, and the continued playing against better women, some would graduate to the open system, and continue their progress, then more quickly than they had in the protected system.

3. All GM's state that one learns best when playing stronger players.

4. In the women's system now, women spend much more time playing lower-rated players than they would spend if playing in the open system. Hou Yifan has improved rapidly since she started playing in the open system, even winning a strong open tournament on one occasion, I believe (And she did at that time continue to also play in the women's parallel system).

5. It is true that the women's system allows women to set targets for improvement - gaining women's titles. And it is true that this is an enticement to stay in the system; another enticement is that there are greater chances of winning financial prizes. And it is true that our junior girls here in Canada, who now come up almost totally in the junior open system, still are enticed (Or their parents are enticed) to go to play in the FIDE women's system junior tournaments, rather than the open system junior tournaments, in hopes of both country representation (with financial perks) and prize winning (Odds for them would be lower in the open system by age). I have some knowledge about this since for 5 years, I was a Voting Member of CFC's VM's Council.

6. Is the argument that because FIDE entices women to play in the parallel system, and they chose to do so, there is no issue?
Is the argument that it really doesn't matter for the future of women's chess, that playing in the women's system that is enticing them, is retarding the speed of their improvement?

7. Are women looking for the best future for women's chess' fast improvement? Or are they, in a conflict of interest position, accepting nowadays still, this parallel system, for its limited benefits, at the expense of the more speedy development of the quality of women's chess, if the parallel system was now phased out by FIDE?

I would really like to hear other Ct'ers on this issue. So far, we are really only hearing from:

1. The "Everything is fine as long as the women want it" position - Peter McKillop;

2. The "It is time to collapse the incubator" position - Bob Armstrong; Brad Thomson.

(Sorry if someone else has clearly adopted one of these two positions, and I missed them; please let me know and I'll edit this post)

Bob A

P.S. - I do not think I denigrate the accomplishment of women who achieve women's FIDE titles....they can all beat me. And they are well-earned....again you miss my point....they would progress faster in their personal chess by playing ONLY in the open system against stronger opponents, and shooting for open FIDE titles as their goal.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Good luck with your quest, Bob. :)

[Fred Harvey]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

[Note: My analysis can be as good as any woman on this women's issue; what I am NOT doing (And you repeatedly charge me with it in your every post, no matter how many times I make the point that I am not doing it) is TELLING them what to do; rather I am asking, politely, if THEY are discussing WHAT TO DO on this issue, to please include my idea in the discussion; I am stating to them as comment on my proposal, that my position is reasonable and chess evidence-based, or at the very least, worth discussing.]

I would really like to hear other Ct'ers on this issue.

Bob A

Your pre-occupation with this issue is becoming decidedly unhealthy! Women chess players, by their very silence, are telling you, and chess talk, precisely how they value your contribution, and that you have no role whatsoever in whatever debate you care to manufacture. You can probably add quite a few guys into that assessment as well.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Yup, and it's sad to see of the total CFC members only 6% are female.

This may be proof that women are smarter than men.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Women’s World Championship 2017, Tehran

Is there anyone willing to state that females, because they are females, are not as capable of playing chess as well as males, who because they are males, are more capable of playing chess than females?

Is there anyone willing to state that males, because they are males, are not as capable of playing chess as well as females, who because they are females, are more capable of playing chess than males?

So why do we need or want segregated events in this modern, advanced, politically correct age? Paul, are we not guilty of 19th Century thinking on this?