2021 US Championship

[Brad Thomson]

We are talking about money aren't we?

Yes, and as Neil pointed out earlier, the men are entitled to play for $195K while the women are entitled to play for $295K simply and only because they are women. This is not fair to men. It is blatant sexism.

[Fred Harvey]

Simple. Men are getting cheated in the process.

I don't get it! Surely if any group of players can persuade an organizer to arrange a tournament, and prizes, for themselves, there's nothing for outsiders to lose. It was never theirs to be cheated out of. We are talking about money aren't we?

[Brad Thomson]

Why do all you "sexist old farts" keep trying to tell women what they should do?

Simple. Men are getting cheated in the process.

[Fred Harvey]

My new idea on top of this is to say, after N career rated games which includes childhood (junior) games, a female can no longer enter women-only sections and must play in the open events. I just don't know what the best value for N would be, that would require statistical analysis. blah blah blah

Why do all you "sexist old farts" keep trying to tell women what they should do? Why not simply try to encourage as many organizers as possible to organize as many tournaments as players want in whatever format they want? It will all work out in the end......

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

1. Women are not inferior to men in chess.
2. Women have lower Elo ratings than men generally at the top level because they do not play the top players (Mostly men) ALL THE TIME. They spend much time playing lower-rated Elo top women players.....just not good enough to get them to the top echelons of open chess.
3. I favour women-only tournaments (Like Junior, Senior, Men-only, etc.). I am against a separate, parallel women-only title system.
4. FIDE brought in the "Women-Only" title system. So it is FIDE that has the power to eliminate it in the best interests of chess (Though some top women will argue it is neither in the interest of chess generally, nor women in particular). It will take some tanking for the politicos to decide to go ahead on this, in the face of a vigorous protest from top echelon women who's income will be substantially lowered without the separate system prize money.

Want to improve? Play the best! Well known in chess.

I believe this is clear....maybe someone might confirm my position is clear and comprehensive to Pargat.

Pargat..I was arguing this years and years ago in my chess newsletter Toronto Chess News & Views.......my position has never changed. Other long-in-the-tooth ChessTalkers can confirm this for you.

I am not sexist, though because of my view, I am often so smeared, and have been for years now.

Bob A

Hi Bob,

Yes, I am clear that you are NOT sexist and I do believe it. I am not trying to prove anything otherwise about you personally.

Bob, I want you to imagine a parallel universe where women are the only ones playing chess. Let's pretend that all men hate chess and don't play it. So in that case, we'd have only the women playing women. Because of your statement 2 above, this would mean that women could not get to the same ELO levels that men are at now.

Can you see that that is a SEXIST view, even though I know you are not sexist? It says that women by the fact that they are women cannot reach the same levels that men have reached in chess. This explains why you have been smeeared as sexist even though you are not sexist. You are clinging onto a sexist view.

But if the men got there by playing only against other men, why can't women get there by playing only other women? Is there something wrong with women, some problem that men don't have? Please explain.

Now, you say "Want to improve? Play the best" to try and prove your view. So yes, women could perhaps improve faster by playing men. In fact, women have equal access to chess engines, so women could train by playing under tournament conditions against Stockfish / Komodo / Rybka / ... and improve even FASTER. They don't need men!

So my argument is, if women are more comfortable in the current chess environment playing against other women, then encourage them to do that with the goal of getting more women into chess. My new idea on top of this is to say, after N career rated games which includes childhood (junior) games, a female can no longer enter women-only sections and must play in the open events. I just don't know what the best value for N would be, that would require statistical analysis.

The reason for having this new rule is to allay concerns that some people like Brad have that women in competitive chess are having their cake and eating it too, as he puts it.

[Brad Thomson]

I think I remember, Bob, you making these arguments back in the mid-90s when I was with the CFC. I too was making the same arguments I am making now. There was an AGM back in those days, possibly London 1993, or Winnipeg 1994, where the question of abolishing the female-specific program was voted upon. In their wisdon the governors decided in favour of continuing, though the vote was not close to unanimous as I recall.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

1. Women are not inferior to men in chess.
2. Women have lower Elo ratings than men generally at the top level because they do not play the top players (Mostly men) ALL THE TIME. They spend much time playing lower-rated Elo top women players.....just not good enough to get them to the top echelons of open chess.
3. I favour women-only tournaments (Like Junior, Senior, Men-only, etc.). I am against a separate, parallel women-only title system.
4. FIDE brought in the "Women-Only" title system. So it is FIDE that has the power to eliminate it in the best interests of chess (Though some top women will argue it is neither in the interest of chess generally, nor women in particular). It will take some tanking for the politicos to decide to go ahead on this, in the face of a vigorous protest from top echelon women who's income will be substantially lowered without the separate system prize money.

Want to improve? Play the best! Well known in chess.

I believe this is clear....maybe someone might confirm my position is clear and comprehensive to Pargat.

Pargat..I was arguing this years and years ago in my chess newsletter Toronto Chess News & Views.......my position has never changed. Other long-in-the-tooth ChessTalkers can confirm this for you.

I am not sexist, though because of my view, I am often so smeared, and have been for years now.

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

Your idea is interesting and may be workable. But if fewer women than men are interested in chess, then so be it and so what? I agree that the programs today are meant to encourage more females to play and for the most part no longer contain the implicit suggestion that females are by nature inferior players to males. But if they are not then we do not need the programs. If men simply want more women around there are lots of other activities where there are plenty of women present.

I agree with Aris in the covid thread saying that you Brad are one of the more open-minded and polite members of this forum.

Your last statement is true of course, but we don't want to remove any men from chess. Anyway I don't think the idea is to simply have more women around, i think it is to have more men & women around. Without the presence of women at all in competitive chess, you will only get some % P1 of the total population involved. The absolute numbers will grow with population, but that is a slow growth. If you add in women in significant numbers, you will bring in more men along with them, and competitive chess participation grows to some new % P2 involved, where P2 > P1. Then you get more corporate sponsorship, you get more $$$, and suddenly you now have % P3 involved, where P3 >> P1.

Therefore I think Brad it is actually wise to wish to see womens-only programs continue, with my added idea of restricting eligibility based on some number N career rated games, so that we get further along to attracting % P3 in competitive chess. And if we get there, the total prize monies will make everyone happier. That is what I meant in another post here about a rising tide lifting all boats.

[Brad Thomson]

Your idea is interesting and may be workable. But if fewer women than men are interested in chess, then so be it and so what? I agree that the programs today are meant to encourage more females to play and for the most part no longer contain the implicit suggestion that females are by nature inferior players to males. But if they are not then we do not need the programs. If men simply want more women around there are lots of other activities where there are plenty of women present.

[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.

[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]

....
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.

[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

[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 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