2021 US Championship

[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.

[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]

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]

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 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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.