If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
0.3
The International FIDE titles shall be under the umbrella of the Qualification Commission, which is the final judging unit. The titles are:
0.31
Titles for over-the-board standard chess (as defined in the Laws of Chess), the judging unit being the QC:
Grandmaster (GM), International Master (IM), FIDE Master (FM), Candidate Master (CM), Woman Grandmaster (WGM), Woman International Master (WIM), Woman FIDE Master (WFM), Woman Candidate Master (WCM).
Etc., etc., etc..
Those are title names not requirements.
and back to the quote: "The regulations do not say that women’s titles are for women only, and QC will add this to the regulations.""
Maybe read the actual source at https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01Regulations2017
and let us know where it says specifically that WOMAN ....MASTER titles are only for woman. That none of man apply does not count.
and as the cited sentence shows the FIDE knows about this situation. When they'll change then you might have your argument.
btw, FIDE also is looking at keeping or abolishing "woman" titles but that a long process. imho they will stay for another decade or two.
Huh?
From FIDE Handbook...
0.3
The International FIDE titles shall be under the umbrella of the Qualification Commission, which is the final judging unit. The titles are:
0.31
Titles for over-the-board standard chess (as defined in the Laws of Chess), the judging unit being the QC:
Grandmaster (GM), International Master (IM), FIDE Master (FM), Candidate Master (CM), Woman Grandmaster (WGM), Woman International Master (WIM), Woman FIDE Master (WFM), Woman Candidate Master (WCM).
Etc., etc., etc..
____________________________________
From their own FIDE Title Wiki...
Though the open FIDE titles are not gender-segregated, the following four titles given by FIDE are exclusive to women and may be held simultaneously with an open title. The requirements for these titles are about 200 Elo rating points lower than the requirements for the corresponding open titles. These titles are sometimes criticized and some female players elect not to take them, preferring to compete for open titles. For example, Grandmaster Judit Polgár, in keeping with her policy of playing only open competitions, never took a women's title.
Woman Grandmaster (WGM)
Woman Grandmaster is the highest-ranking chess title restricted to women. FIDE introduced the WGM title in 1976, joining the previously introduced lower-ranking title, Woman International Master.
The requirements for the WGM title are lower than those for International Master (IM) but higher than those for FIDE Master (FM). The winner of the World Girls Junior Championship is automatically awarded the WGM title. The current regulations can be found in the FIDE handbook.
Woman International Master (WIM)
Woman International Master is next to the highest-ranking title given by FIDE exclusively to women. FIDE first awarded the WIM title (formerly called International Woman Master, or IWM) in 1950.
The WIM title has lower requirements than the unrestricted International Master (2400) title. The runners-up in the World Girls Junior Championship are automatically awarded the WIM title. The current regulations can be found in the FIDE handbook.
Woman FIDE Master (WFM)
The WFM title is just above Woman Candidate Master in the women-only titles given by FIDE. This title may be achieved by gaining a FIDE rating of 2100 or more. FIDE introduced this title in 1978.
Woman Candidate Master (WCM)
Woman Candidate Master is the lowest-ranking title awarded by FIDE. This title may be achieved by gaining a FIDE rating of 2000 or more. FIDE introduced this title in 2002.
______________________________________
Not only are Women segregated they are also degraded as clearly outlined in BOTH publications!
Maybe read the actual source at https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01Regulations2017
and let us know where it says specifically that WOMAN ....MASTER titles are only for woman. That none of man apply does not count.
and as the cited sentence shows the FIDE knows about this situation. When they'll change then you might have your argument.
btw, FIDE also is looking at keeping or abolishing "woman" titles but that a long process. imho they will stay for another decade or two.
Sorry Neil, couldn't resist that one, I'm always up for a cheap joke! LOL
On this whole question of FIDE titles, I have no opinion, except I regard titles in general as anachronistic. I believe tennis has no titles, why does chess need them?
FIDE acknowledged that all their titles were gender-less and thus wording should be changed. "The regulations do not say that women’s titles are for women only, and QC will add this to the regulations."
FIDE Titles are most definitely gender specific...
Not just the WGM rating floor ... raise all of them.
Are you aware that FIDE's lowest title is not awarded to a man?
Why not? Are not men qualified to receive the lowest FIDE title? Why are they not qualified? Are men overly qualified?
FIDE acknowledged that all their titles were gender-less and thus wording should be changed. "The regulations do not say that women’s titles are for women only, and QC will add this to the regulations."
Not just the WGM rating floor ... raise all of them.
Are you aware that FIDE's lowest title is not awarded to a man?
Why not? Are not men qualified to receive the lowest FIDE title? Why are they not qualified? Are men overly qualified?
And as to your overly sensitive old boys network chess federated thin skin ... I suggest that you buckle up!
Seems to me you're on the wrong side of history.
"history" .... or "his story" ????
Sorry Neil, couldn't resist that one, I'm always up for a cheap joke! LOL
On this whole question of FIDE titles, I have no opinion, except I regard titles in general as anachronistic. I believe tennis has no titles, why does chess need them?
Time for Chess Feds ... those with any moral fiber and a backbone to structure ...
At the very least, force FIDE to level the rating floors for all FIDE titles.
doesn’t seem to me you’ve thought very carefully about this other than blindly dissing chess federations. You want what exactly? Raise the wgm rating floor to match 2500 for regular gm? In which case it’s just a gm title and you want to abolish wgm titles. Or lower gm rating floor to match wgm floor? Ditto.
Time for Chess Feds ... those with any moral fiber and a backbone to structure ... to be heard loud and proud.
At the very least, force FIDE to level the rating floors for all FIDE titles.
Front page apology, in digital and in print, for the generations of systematic degradation ... even though it will most likely come from the woke.
Use of the word 'stigma' is on point ...
Stigma is a Greek word that in its origins referred to a type of marking or the tattoo that was cut or burned into the skin of criminals, slaves, or traitors in order to visibly identify them as blemished or morally polluted persons. These individuals were to be avoided particularly in public places.
This topic arose under the topic “2021 USA Championship” on Wed., 21/10/18. It is a totally separate issue, and so I think it deserves its own thread, since the topic is of some interest.
...........
Hi Bob, great idea for the separate thread.
I think it is important to point out what the core debate here is. It has to do with women compared to men in the chess Elo rating system. For this, we are making an initial assumption that women and men do not have any significant difference in their ability to master chess. Of course individual women and men will have differences, but as a whole, we want to assume that an equal number of women and men will have a roughly equal bell curve of Elo ratings within some margin of error that is part of the Elo calculation itself.
At this current time, and in all past decades of Elo ratings, two things are to be observed:
1) men outnumber women in competitive chess by at least 5 to 1, probably closer to 10 to 1, maybe even higher.
2) the elite men have Elo ratings about 200 to 300 points higher than the elite women.
The debate is centered on what women need to do to get to the elite rating levels that the top men currently have.
Bob believes that women MUST play the higher-rated men in order to "steal" their rating points and eventually catch up to them, given our initial assumption. He believes there is no other way for elite women's ratings to reach parity with the elite men's ratings. Bob is ok with telling women this and does not see it as sexist, because he believes it is mathematically correct.
My view is that women could do that, but they should NOT be told that it is the only way. Women generally feel it is a sexist message to be told they must play the elite men to improve their ratings. My view is that women instead should be focusing on growing their numbers in competitive Elo rated chess until their number in that system equal the mens', and only then can we test our initial assumption. If the assumption is correct, the women's bell curve should be, within some small margin of error, identical to the men's. And so the message to women should be that you can play only against women if that makes you feel comfortable (which is a separate issue), and over time you could still see your own rating, if you are an elite talent, reach the same levels as the elite men. So 2700 is not impossible playing against only other women, neither is 2800.
Bob's view is centered around the assumption that once you reach the top rating level of your rating pool, you cannot go any higher unless you are some super talent such as a Magnus Carlsen who is so much better than all others in that pool. If you are not a Carlsen, you can only be left constantly trading Elo points with your peers and the elite group as a whole will remain at the same level.
I provided proof that this is not the case, by showing the table that I will now repeat here, and this software doesn't allow me to format it properly so my apologies for that:
This table shows that over the 50 years that FIDE has been using Elo system, starting in 1971 which makes it 50 years, the ratings of the top 20 world ranked players, who do happen to be all men, have consistently risen. Not just the top player's rating, but the top 20 and I could have extended it to the top 100 and I am sure it would be the same.
In the table, the bracketed numbers show how much the Nth ranked player in that year had improved from the Nth ranked player from 25 years previously. The numbers are all positive and average about 65 in value. It is consistent: the numbers went up in the first 25 years, and they went up again in the next 25 years by roughly the same average value.
Since the total number of rated men has risen for each of those 25 year periods (although I don't know those exact numbers, but I am reasonably sure it is the case), this shows that membership increase leads to Elo increase even in the top rated pool of elite players.
Therefore, it stands to reason that if our initial assumption is correct, AND women's membership in FIDE Elo ratings reaches parity with the men's, then their ratings too will grow to have the elite women above 2700 and maybe one or two women above 2800.
So in conclusion, I believe men should stop telling women they must play higher-rated men to increase their ratings. Instead, the message should be stressing to grow the membership of women in rated chess by convincing other women to try the game for themselves and not let the (unfortunate) historical stigma of chess being a game for male nerds deter them.
There is a table of countries who hold women GMs with additional stats of total FIDE rated players, GMs in total.
Code:
COUNTRY # F GM F&GM
*** 371973 39524 1739 39
CHN 1736 496 48 7
RUS 36702 6106 241 7
GEO 1304 352 30 5
UKR 4788 671 87 4
HUN 6534 620 52 3
IND 33378 3620 68 2
ARM 1280 196 39 1
BUL 1958 271 33 1
FRA 24354 2148 53 1
KAZ 2743 448 17 1
LTU 1151 202 8 1
NED 4516 264 40 1
POL 11517 1633 49 1
QAT 59 16 3 1
SCO 489 31 7 1
SWE 4005 157 23 1
USA 7117 535 98 1
Out of 39 woman only one breached the 2700 barrier. That is ~0.0256 = 1 / 39
At this moment there are 38 over 2700 players (all man). That ratio ~0.022 = 38/1700 (there is flaw as it not possible to get a total number of GMs who reached 2700 out of one rating table)
Roughly - if a women has GM there are more chances she'll be over 2700 too compared to man :)
Don't take those numbers too seriously. To grow a GM regardless of gender is a complex process.
Bob G: "I don't quite follow your argument, so I will refrain from commenting."
At this point, I'm not really arguing anything.
You, Pargat and I are all debating using theoretical models. But I'm unsure if we all agree as to how ELO works on ground zero.
So I proposed a situation close to reality and described how I believe it works.
All I'm trying to do, at this point, is to get agreement on something.......something in common we can work from, rather than each of us throwing up separate models.
I simply am asking you and Pargat if I accurately describe how ELO works on one model. If you both agree, then we can use that model to argue the issue of what happens when there is a women-only group, playing only among themselves, with some new women/girl members entering steadily. This is the situation that Pargat wishes to project on re increasing ratings, as I understand him.
Bob A”
Hi Bob [A], it is a pleasure to debate with you, because like Brad Thomson, you are level-headed and emotionally stable.
So to demonstrate conclusively what happens at Elo ground zero (with some FIDE convolutions added, more on that in a bit), I dug up some information from FIDEs web site.
FIDE has been doing Elo ratings for just over 50 years now. And you are trying to say (I think) that the top echelon, the very elite, of chess as a "rating pool" will not change much over time, because the highest rated player can't move up a section and give points to that section as an "overrated" member of that section.
Well, here is the data that refutes that and that shows how increase in membership translates to growing ratings (albeit very slowly growing) at even the elite level:
Sorry that I can't get the right formatting here. But the first column is FIDE top 20 ratings for January 1972, before Fischer had played Spassky.
The second column is January 1996, so 25 years later.
The numbers in brackets show how much the rating of that position in the ranking went up or down.... actually, always up.
The third column is January 2021 top 20, and again the numbers in brackets are how much that ranking went up in rating from the 1996 ones.
So you see, even the top elite are going up in rating over a long period of time, quite consistently. Fischer was ahead of his time by 25 years in terms of his rating, he was quite dominant.
The key numbers are the top 20 average rating at the very bottom row. Consistently moving up.
This is what happens when you add membership to the rating pool.
And this would happen for women also, who right now their total membership isn't yet 20% of the male membership, unless some really rapid growth has happened in the last 5 years.
So this is what happens on the ground in Elo ratings, Bob. Membership growth fuels ratings growth, even at the elite levels.
Once women get their membership up to men's levels, they too will have their 2800+ members.
The problem with your model is that you don't agree that even the elite section grows in Elo ratings as membership grows. This data proves the opposite is the case. But if you still disagree, then please explain where all these increases in ratings are coming from?
It is quite interesting that it takes 25 year periods to really demonstrate this, because of the slow rate of play of chess. In computer engine chess, the engines are playing each other 24/7 and the ratings are probably much more accurate and up to date.
Now maybe you can see my point? We should be emphasizing growing women's membership, not telling women they must play against men to improve.
Note: Bob A has advised he will respond to Pargat's last post in early Nov., after his “Interlude” break from “Normal Society”.
This topic arose under the topic “2021 USA Championship” on Wed., 21/10/18. It is a totally separate issue, and so I think it deserves its own thread, since the topic is of some interest.
Below are the more recent of some of the threads there, that give some background to the discussion taking place (Mostly between Pargat Perrer, Bob Gillanders and Bob Armstrong, with others adding in)
“Can we agree on an investigative model, somewhat reflective of reality?: that the 2021 women's pool at the moment has a lower average rating than an open pool of the same number of players. And the average rating of the elite women players is about 200 rating points below that of the elite in the open pool. And for the sake of argument, let's say that, at the moment, there are the same number of players in each pool (arbitrarily.....1000), though in fact the open pool is bigger. For our investigation, I think this fact does not affect the outcome........or do you think it does?”
Yes, I've been saying (and Bob G. agreed apparently) that the key variable is the relative size of the two pools. If you take the size of the open pool now, let's say worldwide it's 100,000 people for just a round number, then we see that with that many people and with some number N rated games between the members of the pool, the highest rating achieved so far is just over 2850.
If the pool grows by X number of members, the rating of Carlsen might reach 2900. Exactly what X needs to be could probably be worked out mathematically.
Now let's say this open pool is actually all men, it's not critical because we have already hypothesized that men and women are equal at chess ability by nature. You can still call it "open pool" if you like.
Now we create a new pool and it is women only. At first it only had let's say 1,000 members. Over time it grows to 10,000, then to 50,000, and finally to 100,000 members. And they are only playing against each other, no games against the men. Now all we need is for the right number of rated games played by all the members to achieve a Bell curve that is accurate enough. Maybe that number is actually less than N, the number of rated games that has been played up to today by the open pool. Or maybe it does need to be N.
Once we reach that number, the Bell curve for the women will be almost totally identical to the open pool curve. That means the outliers will be almost identical in number and in rating, there will be maybe 2 women near to the 2850 rating. This will happen without any woman playing any man in a rated game.
If we can agree on that, then we don't need any investigation, which of course a real investigation cannot happen because we can't actually separate out the men and women in real life.
Here is a question and answer on Quora.com which reinforces my point:
Question: What is the highest Elo chess rating possible?
Shaun Press
, FM, FT, IA, Member FIDE Rules Commision
Answered Jan 17, 2018
A2A
As the question is currently stated - there is no upper limit to Elo ratings. As the pool of players increases, the rating of the highest players get larger (not constantly, but eventually)
If you are looking for a specific number then the question could be restated as - “In a closed pool of N chess players, what is the highest theoretical Elo rating possible?” Then you can calculate the answer.
I underlined the critical statement. This is what you need to understand about Elo ratings. Bob Armstrong – Tues., 21/10/19
Hi Pargat:
We are making progress.
Yes........what generally happens is that the open pool grows by new, low-rated players entering the pool. They are then beaten up upon by the top players in their section. These top players move up a section, becoming the lowest rated players one section up. But they are over-rated - they didn't improve; they just beat up on weaker players. So the top players in this section beat up on them, and gain rating points, enough to enter the next section up. And so on up the sections 'til the "Open" section. Then in the Open section the top players increase their rating a very small amount by winning away from the bottom, the new rating points brought into the Open Section pool by these bottom rated plalyers.
BUT.......
This increase will be very modest, because of the rating formula FIDE has at the top rating level. Furthermore, the average rating of the elite top 10, for example, will then stagnate and remain the pool's average top rating, since the top players will just trade points back and forth, randomly winning, drawing and losing. This is barring one of the 10 actually being Magnus Carlsen, who could then beat up on the other 9 elite players, and raise his rating to the top level, a ways above the average rating of the other 9 elite players.
Note also: if the new player into the pool is rated the same as the other 10 elite players, and is not Magnus Carlsen, the average ceiling rating of the pool will not change.
Do Pargat and Bob G agree that I have the system properly working so far in my investigation?
Leave a comment: