2021 US Championship

[Brad Thomson]

Why is it so difficult to face the fact that female-specific chess programs are a hangover from a pre-modern, pre-feminist age when men looked down upon women as inferior intellectual specimins?

[Brad Thomson]

It was a man (I think) who came onto this thread and said look, sexism against women! When women chess players rise up in unison or at least in vast majority and say that, then it's a real issue, and not until.

I happen to be male physically and I have chosen to identify as a heterosexual male, but are you saying that if I chose to identify as female I would not get a vote?

Futher, my claim is sexism in favour of females and against males. Why should some of the prize money go only to the best females rather than to the best players irrespective of gender? Unless, of course, you are prepared to claim that when it comes to chess women are inferior to men.

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Paragat:

Here is the problem..........

Already, the top echelon women are well aware, that they will only reach the pinnacle of their talent IF they play the top players (Mostly men) often. And some of them are now doing this.......showing up in "open" tournaments beside very strong male players. And they are often improving as a result. And also sometimes winning lower prize money.

BUT.......

These top women also make good $$ winning in the separate "women-only" parallel system.

So...........they have a "conflict of interest" on the question of totally eliminating the women-only title system. And the reason for this is that although eliminating the system, does not eliminate "women only tournaments", where is the prize money to come from if there is only the latter??

It is asking a lot for them to self-sacrifice for what is right (Only one "open" system), at the expense of a major portion of their chess income.

The reason I say all players should have a vote on this, not just women, is that the issue is what is best for women in chess........in the whole perspective of chess. The choice should not only be given to one segment of the chess community, because it is a system sectoralization - women did NOT set this up.......FIDE DID!

So FIDE should have the power to undue it........though they will get very heavy flack from all sides when they do decide to do the right thing!

Bob A

Hi Bob,

I can't figure out if you are arguing for elimination of BOTH the women's-only title system and the women's only tournaments or just the title system. But I think you are arguing for elimination of both, is that correct?

You are absolutely correct that women won't push FIDE to eliminite either system if they are benefitting very nicely from the status quo. And therein lies my point: if they are happy with the status quo, we men should not try and take away what they have. If we do take it away, we go back to the old status quo, which was virtually no women playing competitive chess at all.

Brad Thomson is trying to get someone to say women are by their nature inferior at chess to men. Nigel Short may have said it, but I don't think anyone else agrees. BUT... I will say this: women are not as predisposed to wanting to play chess as men. Of course, there are exceptions.... exceptions that make the rule. Young girls might get fascinated by chess as easily as young boys, but the boys will persist at the game into adulthood at a much higher rate than the girls if there is no separate reward system for girls only. This is why the separate women's-only titles and tournaments were devised in the first place, to bring more girls and women into chess.


I think we all need to understand something about the ELO rating system. If we divided all the world's rated chess players into two halves, RANDOMLY, so that each group had some patzers, some middle strength players, and some GMs, and we reset their ELO ratings to whatever a new player gets, and we started rating from scratch, and all players in one section only played against players in thier own section, i.e. the two sections are totally isolated from each other, what would happen? The elite GMs in each half would eventually rise to the top and get their 2800 ratings back. Eventually! Might take a while, yes.

Also, we do have another group of rated players who do not play strong GMs and yet achieve ELO ratings of as high as 3500, by playing only amongst themselves. I am speaking of computer engines. If Stockfish never plays rated games against Carlsen, Caruana, MVL, Nakamura and so on, how does Stockfish get a rating in the mid-3000's ELO? It gets it by playing other computer engines.

So if we have women playing only against women, the nature of the ELO rating system is that any GM strength women among them will eventually rise to the level they should get to, which if they are as strong as Carlsen, they will get a 2800+ rating. Eventually!

So you cannot argue that women playing only against women deprives them of improving and getting to their proper rating level. To argue THAT is to argue that women are inferior at chess to men, because you would be arguing that none of the women players could possibly be as strong OR BECOME AS STRONG as the leading male GMs by only playing each other. And the computer engines becoming as strong as 3500 disproves that entirely.

We know that men are inferior at chess to computer engines, so men cannot hope to get to 3500 ELO level without playing (and beating) computer engines. Why then aren't men doing this? Because of their egos! If men really wanted to improve to the very best possible ELO rating, they would welcome playing against the very best computer engines.

Bob, your whole argument breaks down with this statement you made:
"It is asking a lot for them (women competitive chess players) to self-sacrifice for what is right (Only one "open" system), at the expense of a major portion of their chess income."

Who gave you the authority to decide what is "right"? How do you define "right"?

If they are happy with what they have and they are coming into chess in greater numbers, then it is right, is it not?

Perhaps men are just greedy and just want more prize money for themselves. Perhaps they don't realize that a rising tide lifts all boats.

[Pargat Perrer]

Why is it so difficult to face the fact that female-specific chess programs are a hangover from a pre-modern, pre-feminist age when men looked down upon women as inferior intellectual specimins?

I don't know the history and don't know how far back women-only chess tournaments and championships began, and perhaps when it did begin there was some of what you claim about it. But the recent movement to get young girls into chess by letting them play in their own sections separate from boys, are you saying that that is ALSO because men look down upon women as inferior intellectual specimens?

Or would you agree that this recent movement, taken up by many FIDE federations including the CFC, is far more motivated by the desire to convince young girls to get involved in competitive chess in equal or near-equal numbers as young boys?

And if yes, you could agree to that, than can we dispense with the history and just get down to continuing this effort to get young girls into chess?

[Pargat Perrer]

I happen to be male physically and I have chosen to identify as a heterosexual male, but are you saying that if I chose to identify as female I would not get a vote?

Futher, my claim is sexism in favour of females and against males. Why should some of the prize money go only to the best females rather than to the best players irrespective of gender? Unless, of course, you are prepared to claim that when it comes to chess women are inferior to men.

I didn't mention anything about voting. I'm only saying the status quo is an issue when and only when the vast majority of competitive women players say it is an issue.

The answer to your "Why...?" question is simple: to get more girls and women into chess, because as i just wrote to Bob Armstrong, women and girls are not as predisposed to taking chess seriously as are men and boys. If you go back to the old status quo, great numbers of women and girls will stop playing competitive chess.

[Brad Thomson]

I see nothing wrong with chess tournaments for girls, in fact at chess camps if there were enough girls there who wanted to do so I would allow them to have their own section. My concern is the theft of prize funds from the best players period, and awarding monies on a sexist basis. We have an open section where anyone can play, and another section where only women can play, but no section where only men can play. This stinks. Men are getting ripped off by sexists and by women who want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Pargat Perrer]

I see nothing wrong with chess tournaments for girls, in fact at chess camps if there were enough girls there who wanted to do so I would allow them to have their own section. My concern is the theft of prize funds from the best players period, and awarding monies on a sexist basis. We have an open section where anyone can play, and another section where only women can play, but no section where only men can play. This stinks. Men are getting ripped off by sexists and by women who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Ok, well FIDE can't make the open sections into mens only because then the women would claim discrimination since women are not inferior in ability to men like they are in tennis for example.

Since the goal is to get more girls and women into chess, perhaps there should be a "cutoff point" at which women players are no longer eligible to play in women's only sections. Maybe based on number of career rated games. What would a good number be, 500? 1000? I don't know but someone with a statistics bent could determine a good round number. After that many rated games, a woman must play in open events, not women-only events. The number of rated games would start even from childhood.

Does that sound reasonable, or is there still an issue?

[Brad Thomson]

Does that sound reasonable, or is there still an issue?

My only concern is professionalsim, in other words, money. The money should go to the best players, period.

[Pargat Perrer]

My only concern is professionalsim, in other words, money. The money should go to the best players, period.

Ok, so your position is that all efforts to get more girls and women into chess by allowing them to play in women-only events with prize money should be abandoned. Period.

I don't see any other way to read your position.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Only arguing for elimination of the separate, parallel, women only "TITLE" system.

Women Only tournaments are fine, just like Junior Tournaments, Senior Tournaments, etc. Women may find the general atmosphere at a women-only tournament more comfortable than when they play in an open tournament.....why not?

I also see nothing wrong with a Men-Only Tournament (No Junior Boys; no Women/Girls), for what it is worth..Why not?

Bob A

[Brad Thomson]

Ok, so your position is that all efforts to get more girls and women into chess by allowing them to play in women-only events with prize money should be abandoned. Period.

I don't see any other way to read your position.

Or, have men's only tournaments where women are not allowed on the grounds that they are inferior.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Brad:

Why can't we just have a men-only tournament.........because men like the atmosphere in such a tournament!

My own view is that women will become equal in playing strength to men only once they have to play in open tournaments against the best, both men and women, ALL THE TIME. Get rid of the separate, parallel women's only title system. It had its purpose when FIDE brought it in; its day is past; FIDE should now eliminate it (Whether the women object or not! Boy.......I'm going to get blasted on this one).

And there can be women-only tournaments, just like there can be men-only tournaments.

For tournaments however, societal misogyny will come to the fore.....there will be less prize money for women-only tournaments than for men-only tournaments. Of course, part of the reason for this will also be that, at the moment, the strongest tournament will be the men-only.

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

....
My own view is that women will become equal in playing strength to men only once they have to play in open tournaments against the best, both men and women, ALL THE TIME. ....

Hey Bob, I don't want to be trolling you, you're a good guy, but this statement above is sexist and I don't think you even realize it. You are saying that women as a group MUST play against men in order to reach the ELO rating levels that men have today. The only grounds for that is that you believe women are by their very nature inferior at chess to men. But if you think you have different grounds for that belief, please do try and explain it.

I already gave the example of chess engine ratings to prove that point. Engines only play against other engines, yet the best engines reach a rating of roughly 3500 ELO. Why? Because of their nature and because of the capabilities of the hardware on which they run.

Men only achieve peak ratings of roughly 2850. Why? Because of their nature and the capabilities of the "hardware" on which they run.

You are saying that women, playing only against women, can only achieve peak ratings of .... what? 2400 maybe? Give us a number. And why? Because of their nature and the "hardware" on which they run.

Ergo, the nature of women and the "hardware" on which they run is inferior in some way to that of men. That is what you are saying, even if you don't realize it.

Keep in mind that all women have access to chess books and chess computer engines to study with and learn from. So what is to stop women, AS A GROUP, from reaching the same playing strength as men? In other words, if you did a bell curve of playing strength against percentage of players, the curve for the women should eventually match almost exactly the curve for men, given that their nature and hardware capabilities are the same. Unless you don't think they are the same.

[Brad Thomson]

I am not sure what else to say. I see no reason for women-specific chess programs because I see no reason why women cannot play chess as well as men. It is not like hockey and other physical sports where men have a clear advantage. Chess is a purely intellectual game. So why do we discriminate in chess? Whatever the reasons, to me they are not legitimate, for they entail the implicit suggestion that men are superior at a purely intellectual activity and this proposition I am not willing to accept. Of course if private groups want to hold women's events, or events specific to any segment of society, this is fine. But governing bodies, national championships and so forth should in my opinion be for chess players, period. This is simply my opinion and I may be wrong.

[Pargat Perrer]

I am not sure what else to say. I see no reason for women-specific chess programs because I see no reason why women cannot play chess as well as men. It is not like hockey and other physical sports where men have a clear advantage. Chess is a purely intellectual game. So why do we discriminate in chess? Whatever the reasons, to me they are not legitimate, for they entail the implicit suggestion that men are superior at a purely intellectual activity and this proposition I am not willing to accept. Of course if private groups want to hold women's events, or events specific to any segment of society, this is fine. But governing bodies, national championships and so forth should in my opinion be for chess players, period. This is simply my opinion and I may be wrong.

In an earlier post, I suggested that women after some number N of rated games played, women could be ruled ineligible for women's only events and the prize money awarded in those events (and we are talking about, as you wrote Brad, events run by chess governing bodies and / or national championships). I haven't seen a response from you on that idea.

The notion being, we should still continue efforts to get girls and women interested in playing chess because without such efforts, girls and women will not engage in competitive chess. That was the reason for the recent push (last 10 years lets say) for the girls-only and women-only events in the first place, NOT BECAUSE women are judged to be physiologically inferior to men at chess. The latter reason may have been the case going back further in history, but the recent push for women and girls is NOT because of such sexist beliefs.

So Brad, where your opinion is wrong is in the blind assertion that all women-only and girls-only events "entail the implicit suggestion that men are superior at a purely intellectual activity". Historically I can imagine that might have been true, but not in the 21st century, outside of Afghanistan and a few other places which doesn't include Canada.

So please Brad, is my idea of having a cutoff point of some N rated games beyond which women are not allowed to enter women-only events -- where N is a reasonable number that allows a girl or woman who is just learning chess to be not intimidated out of the game entirely by virtue of being able to play against fellow girls / women who are also just learning chess -- a workable compromise solution?

And keep in mind that women and girls are not as predisposed to playing chess as men or boys, a verifiable fact, which is why we need to make it as painless as possible for them. In order to relate to that, you have to have understanding, a very hard thing for men to do.

I'm a little surprised there are no CFC people commenting on this matter.