2021 US Championship

[Hans Jung]

https://en.chessbase.com/post/us-cha...s-2021-preview US Championship starts tomorrow.

[Connor Gherasim]

wonder if shanky can repeat his miracle run this time around

[Hans Jung]

It will be great further advertising for Jacob Aagaard's training methods if Sam Shankland does win.

[Neil Frarey]

Seen the prize fund distribution?

195k for men

100k for women

Over the course of eleven rounds, twelve competitors will battle for $194,000 in prize money ($100,000 in the women’s tournament),

This shit ... the degrading of women ... will never end unless spineless chess feds such your FIDE ass kissing Chess Federation of Canada ... WAKE THE FUCK UP!

[Brad Thomson]

Are the women eligible to play for the "men's" money if they are good enough players? Are the men eligible to play for the women's money?

[Bob Armstrong]

Initially, it is my view that a separate women's system was necessary for many reasons, but as an incubator system.......to allow them to develop and then join in the non-gender system.

There has been some progress in the beating back of misogyny in chess - I think enough that women no longer, at the adult level, need a separate title system. Women will only join the top rank of non-gender chess when they must play the best ALL the time.

I am also not against women-only tournaments - they are fine; maybe women find their atmosphere more to their liking than the atmosphere at non-gender tournaments.

What I am against is a whole, separate, parallel, title system for women........it's day has come, and was needed, and it is now time to jettison it.

Bob A

[Brad Thomson]

I am on record as suggesting that Women's chess programs are sexist unless we are prepared to state that women by their nature are not as good at chess as men.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

What I am against is a whole, separate, parallel, title system for women........it's day has come, and was needed, and it is now time to jettison it

You are suggesting to have nothing instead of something. When top woman will start talking about abolishing this system then maybe it will be more serious. Have you guys talked the same about other sports like ice hockey or soccer?

[Brad Thomson]

You are suggesting to have nothing instead of something. When top woman will start talking about abolishing this system then maybe it will be more serious. Have you guys talked the same about other sports like ice hockey or soccer?

Women are not likely to do this, for as it stands now they are having their cake and eating it too. Hockey, soccer and other such sports are physical as well as intellectual activities, and no one will dispute that men are bigger, stronger and faster than women physically. Women by their nature are not as good at these physcial activities as men, but there is no comparable argument when it comes to chess. For a woman to become a grandmaster with lesser qualifications than men is an insult to the intelligence of women. Again, they only tolerate such insults (those that do) when it plays to their advantage, when it allows them to have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps we should give women degrees in medicine and licenses to practice medicine with a lower set of standards than men? That would certainly encourage their participation! Chess should face modern reality and abolish women-specific programs, all of us are equally capable of playing chess. Or, the chess world should come right out and state that women by nature are not as good at chess as men. The double standard is both sexism and hypocricy at their finest.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Women are not likely to do this, for as it stands now they are having their cake and eating it too. Hockey, soccer and other such sports are physical as well as intellectual activities, and no one will dispute that men are bigger, stronger and faster than women physically. Women by their nature are not as good at these physcial activities as men, but there is no comparable argument when it comes to chess. For a woman to become a grandmaster with lesser qualifications than men is an insult to the intelligence of women. Again, they only tolerate such insults (those that do) when it plays to their advantage, when it allows them to have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps we should give women degrees in medicine and licenses to practice medicine with a lower set of standards than men? That would certainly encourage their participation! Chess should face modern reality and abolish women-specific programs, all of us are equally capable of playing chess. Or, the chess world should come right out and state that women by nature are not as good at chess as men. The double standard is both sexism and hypocricy at their finest.

Woman don't become grandmasters with less qualification. They can get a title "woman grandmaster" or skip it. All genders have the same requirement for "Grandmaster" title.

[Brad Thomson]

Woman don't become grandmasters with less qualification. They can get a title "woman grandmaster" or skip it. All genders have the same requirement for "Grandmaster" title.

Yes, but only one of two genders is eligible for one of the titles. Sexism, double-standard, hypocricy. Unless you are willing to state that females are by nature inferior chess players to males. Why do those of you who support a female-specific program not just come out and admit that you think women are inferior at chess?

[John Brown]

This is really a no brainer.!! If the US championship had said we only want men then they are sexist. If they did not then why would a woman try to beat GM's in the Men US Championship when they can compete in the Women"s US Championship and maybe win. Who cares on the type of prize fund.
If you want to complain then ask why different sections give different prize funds. Same argument with a bit of a twist. Sponsors are usually contributing to these top up prize funds and most are male based. If you want women to get same deal then you gotta find female supporters. Hans made this link so we can watch the games . so shut up you back seat drivers.

[Connor Gherasim]

nice start for the young man(!!) john burke today.

nice to see nazi playing again, i think she was semi-retired for the past little bit

[Pargat Perrer]

Women are not likely to do this, for as it stands now they are having their cake and eating it too. Hockey, soccer and other such sports are physical as well as intellectual activities, and no one will dispute that men are bigger, stronger and faster than women physically. Women by their nature are not as good at these physcial activities as men, but there is no comparable argument when it comes to chess. For a woman to become a grandmaster with lesser qualifications than men is an insult to the intelligence of women. Again, they only tolerate such insults (those that do) when it plays to their advantage, when it allows them to have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps we should give women degrees in medicine and licenses to practice medicine with a lower set of standards than men? That would certainly encourage their participation! Chess should face modern reality and abolish women-specific programs, all of us are equally capable of playing chess. Or, the chess world should come right out and state that women by nature are not as good at chess as men. The double standard is both sexism and hypocricy at their finest.

I think Chess should only do what WOMEN want chess to do. 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 think Nigel Short did come out and say some years ago that women by nature are not as good at chess as men. I don't know what evidence, if any, he provided.

This topic did give me two ideas:

- someone should do a study: have chess players of various ratings play matches against other players without ever seeing the other player or knowing who it is. Some matches will be man against man, some man against woman, some woman against woman, but each match should have 2 players of nearly equal rating. After each match, ask each player to guess the sex of their opponent. If the success rate of guessing is much higher than 50%, then there is something different about how women and men play chess, and the next goal would be to identify that something.

- an idea for Mixed Doubles Chess: two opponents on each side of the board, one is male and one female on each team. Each team takes turns between their two players, who are not allowed to communicate during the game. If one gets up to use the restroom or walk around the room, the other must stay seated at the board. The time control would have enough of an increment that there is no time scramble, because one player on each team would have a further reach to hit the clock which could affect results otherwise. Of course, there could be Men's Doubles and Women's Doubles as well.

EDIT: maybe only 1 team member should be seated at the table at any time, otherwise some form of cheating communication might occur. So once a player makes a move, he or she gets out of the chair without speaking or making any signal to the other player, who then sits in the chair while the other player must stay behind out of sight of the player who is seated.

[Bob Armstrong]

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