Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Round 1 pairings

Nobody is ever spoken for :)

Best of luck. ;)

[Ken Craft]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Why is this place always full of sexism?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Why is this place always full of sexism?

Have I ever explained to you how sex and travel works?

[Ken Craft]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

And pray tell what does that have to do with the objectification of women which takes place on this site with remarkable frequency, Gary?

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

And pray tell what does that have to do with the objectification of women which takes place on this site with remarkable frequency, Gary?

I think I know what Gary meant, but since this is not Spraggett's blog, I will not repeat it or clarify. In any case Ken, I think you may be over reacting to Aman's post. Clearly, he spotted a photo of an attractive Grandmaster (as it turns out) and wondered who she was (obviously he was smitten - it is ok to be smitten isn't it?).

Perhaps we can debate the much more serious objectification of women that is the demarcation between the "Open" and "Womens" section of the Olympiad. Women can play in the Men's (sorry, Open) section but Men cannot play in the Women's section.

The same situation occurs in kid's hockey (at least here in Ontario) - girls can (and do) sign up to play in House League hockey but boys cannot sign up for the girl leagues.

If major organizations continue to note the difference between men and women, why are we surprised when it occurs elsewhere?

[Ken Craft]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

It isn't an isolated incident on this site Kerry.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

It isn't an isolated incident on this site Kerry.

Conspiracy theories go in the climate change thread.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

It isn't an isolated incident on this site Kerry.

I agree Ken and I am only slightly worried at my participation in the latest thread in question (although I took it as a very, very slight sexist offense).

To be fair, I actually try to avoid Spraggett's site because some of the crap he posts is truly juvenile and putrid, *but* the chess content is top rate. I wish he would stop posting the garbage and stick to chess, but I suppose his readership would plummet!

I suppose if you make the site more or less self-policing (or not policed at all) then you get what you deserve. I know Larry and other admins here remove truly offensive stuff - although sometimes it has taken quite a protest to have that happen.

I recall a similar kerfuffle about the use of the pejorative "retarded" - especially when used with so little apparent thought.

I guess everyone has a different threshold when it comes to certain aspects of public decorum - perhaps the bar is universally being lowered? That would be sad.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Round 2 roundup:

3-1 win over Turkmenistan.
The ladies lost 4-0 to Kazakhstan.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Why is this place always full of sexism?

It's mostly self-policing, as Kerry notes further in this thread. If we had lots of complaints about sexist posts then maybe things would change. We have some guidelines that could be improved, of course. Have a look over here if you are interested.

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/announcement.php?f=2

I post on at least one other Canadian discussion board where the level of debate and expectations are much higher, where moderators are paid, where sharp and vehement differences of opinion are normal, etc. The members of the forum have established more respectful posting rules over time and newbies are "reminded" of the rules if they are violated. They have no problem suspending even the most veteran members if they cross the line. I even know one board in which a special area is put aside for feminists and woe betide anyone who isn't respectful enough. They set such policies mostly so that they don't have to re-hash fundamentals over and over again and listen to the fake sincerity of trolls.

Anyway, those are specialized sites not for everyone.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Perhaps we can debate the much more serious objectification of women that is the demarcation between the "Open" and "Womens" section of the Olympiad. Women can play in the Men's (sorry, Open) section but Men cannot play in the Women's section.

The whole idea is to encourage women's chess and the administration/organization of the event is simply a means to that end. By allowing female chess players to have a choice, there's more likelihood they will find somewhere to play at the appropriate level of play. If they rise to the level of a Judit Polgar, then why not? It's a laudible social goal of equality that's far from accomplished. It's got nothing to do with the objectification of women.

I'm in favour of encouraging women's chess by such means. Thank goodness, the overwhelming majority of chess players and administrators agree.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Round 2 roundup:

The ladies lost 4-0 to Kazakhstan.

I played those game through. Those Kazakhies were really cooking.

If someone mentions sexism for this I'm going to ask for an idiot exorcism. :)

[David Ottosen]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

The whole idea is to encourage women's chess and the administration/organization of the event is simply a means to that end. ...I'm in favour of encouraging women's chess by such means. Thank goodness, the overwhelming majority of chess players and administrators agree.

Does this "debate" have to go again, when it's been conclusively proven that such things have been done for years, and there has been no appreciable increase in women's play? That no second Judit Polgar has come along (and that she refuses to play women's only events)? Segregated chess events do nothing of the sort you describe, but still exist for silly historical reasons.

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Whether or not participation is increasing because of the different sections, I think it's quite clearly true that participation would decrease without them. 2100 rated women would not show up to play a bunch of 2200+ males who would surely crush them, but they would definitely show up to compete for 1st place in a women's section.

Furthermore, I believe it would be more difficult to locate the beautiful women if they were not conveniently placed in one big group together. This is why segregated chess sections are very important.



:)

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Istanbul Chess Olympiad 2012

Whether or not participation is increasing because of the different sections, I think it's quite clearly true that participation would decrease without them. 2100 rated women would not show up to play a bunch of 2200+ males who would surely crush them, but they would definitely show up to compete for 1st place in a women's section.

Furthermore, I believe it would be more difficult to locate the beautiful women if they were not conveniently placed in one big group together. This is why segregated chess sections are very important.
:)

I don't know about any problems related to location, location, location. However, why would 2100-rated women not show up to be (likely) crushed by 2200-rated men, yet 2100-rated MEN show up with the same chances?

Judit Polgar is quite exceptional and makes the choices she makes; she clearly is strong enough to compete in the predominantly male/Open section and there are probably one or three dozen of other top-rated women who would presumably qualify too.

I don't like the idea of a women-only section in the Olympiad; specific tournaments exclusively for girls or women is just fine (see Susan Polgar's excellent motivational results for girls for example) but maintaining the segregation by gender seems pointless in the Olympiad. In sports where physical strength is crucial it seems to make sense to separate men/women but in an intellectual sport like chess it makes no sense (to me).

PS: I would like to see men vs women MMA