The article is apparently complaining that women have more options than men or something. Are you saying the easier prizes gives women less motivation to be better? Even if that is true, then what does that say about women? That they're willing to take the easy way out for some cheap cash? However, I really don't think that is the case; chess is not very career friendly: you have to be very strong to have any chance of relying on it for a living, and unless you're in the top 10, though you may make a living as a GM or even IM, it would most likely only be "just good enough", not super comfortable. I think all chess players who get to a certain level almost have to adore the game and want to learn more and more about it; I'm not even 2000 yet OTB but I certainly feel that way. It's not like I desperately tried to be 1599 forever so I could keep taking first in some U1600 group! My desire to become better certainly outweighed that!

Who wouldn't want to play grandmasters once in a while given the chance? I know I'd lose but I'd certainly love to sit face to face with one and see how I fare, maybe talk with him or her afterwards, because I'd respect a game I enjoy being played with so much finesse.

I think the women who play in mostly women only tournaments do so because they simply want a chance of winning, given their level, and this is completely reasonable... until they complain about their extra options! If their level was higher, than they could try to go for more. They'd probably sometimes like to play grandmasters too even with stacked odds (as I do), but the bulk of their time would be spent in tournaments with a chance. Do you really think they want to live a life collecting cheap money at easier tournaments and deliberately trying to get no better? That sucks the fun out of chess - the endless road to improvement, for what? Barely enough money to support yourself? Judit Polgar could beat all the women of her time, and thus she went for more! She could actually hold her own with the top players, and I don't think any other woman really could because anyone below her was probably below 2600, or barely so. That's a fact.

"just imagine that you are regularly beating 2000-2400 FIDE players and learning hardly anything instead of clashing with the titans!"

Then by all means, clash! The woman gets her pick, and if she complains, she should instead blame her own decision.

There is plenty of "sexism" against the man here! I actually saw a chess life article and the famous Anna Zatonskih played an endgame. Now, after this, the author said "now here's one from her husband (so... not even his name was mentioned )"; that was probably the first time I ever hear him be mentioned, and I had assumed that was because he did nothing special, but actually... he is a stronger chess player than her! Poor guy, gets overshadowed by his... in the chess sense, inferior(??) spouse, because she is a woman? Is that not sexual prejudice right there? As if women are so much more important that they deserve more recognition even if they have a lower rating than some "average" 2600 GM? This clearly shows the opposite of sexism against females.

seniorkk, how ignorant are you? women already CAN play in open tournaments, that's why they're called "open" and not "men's".

Men are getting the "lion's share" in monetary prizes because they're statistically better chess players than women are and more men play chess. To promote women chess? Did you ever think that if a woman really wanted to play chess, she's free to do so? There's absolutely nothing stopping her. Also, we already have women's only tournaments, so creating more obviously won't solve the problem as it hasn't done so thus far.

'Main reason is that , "Chess Organization is controlled by men". Women don't have say in the organization set up.As usual many reason will be given to avoid separate prize money tournaments.'

There are no such things as seperate prize money tournaments. If there were men's only tournaments AND women's only tournaments, nobody would complain. However, it's exclusively women who get the second chance at prize money and that's why people are against the idea. It's sexist.

"In all other sports & game there are separate events for women. Chess is not a main stream game. Chess organizers are narcissist. They should come out & see, what's happening in the sports world ."

There ARE seperate chess tournaments for women already. You're terribly misinformed if you believe otherwise. I don't think you have an actual point in writing here, but just wanted to say something to feel special. You don't appear to know much about the topic you're making accusations within.

"Separate tournaments & rating list is required."

An interesting idea actually. If women are only going to play against each other, it's possible to hold seperate rating lists for men and women. However, I doubt those who want to compete seriously in open chess tournaments would be too fond of the idea. Perhaps things are better with one rating list. It would be troublesome to convert ratings if women wanted to suddenly play in open tournaments.

Women can already play chess. There's no big campaign and fight for social equality that needs to be addressed. They simply don't want to play chess as much as men do for whatever reason. Chess tends to draw a male crowd. Maybe most females see it as a waste of time where they can be doing something productive, maybe it just doesn't appeal to them. Stop blaming organizations and creating conspiracies around utter nonsense. If you want to see women, stop playing chess for a few days and go out and meet them.

Let women players play in men's (Open) tournaments. They will get just ego satisfaction .

In monetary returns (Prize fund) men are getting lions share. Now a days many women players are playing this game but comparing men very few in number.To promote women chess we need to conduct separate tournaments for women.It will attract more women to play in this Men dominated game. Chess Olympiad, world championship & zonal women events are conducted separately. But are they enough?

Main reason is that , "Chess Organization is controlled by men". Women don't have say in the organization set up.As usual many reason will be given to avoid separate prize money tournaments.

In all other sports & game there are separate events for women. Chess is not a main stream game. Chess organizers are narcissist. They should come out & see, what's happening in the sports world .

Separate tournaments & rating list is required.

Any way Elo rating starts at 1200. This shows more players. But is it international ranking? any tom,dick & harry can get an elo & claim as an international rated player. Fide is getting annual fees for rated players but what about standard of the list.We have to maintain standard for Elo list . International Ranking must be tough one.

Dhalsim, yet again refusing to answer my questions. Imagine almost any kind of debate: side A poses a question to side B, and side B refuses to answer. What does that tell you?

The issue is pretty easy to grasp even without the analogies: the idea that discrimination is the core of the problem, so should we just pay off women with extra cash, or use that money to design services dealing with the discrimination?

In other words, the more money you spend to pay off women, the less money you have left over to deal with the discrimination. Which approach would you prefer? This isn't about simply taking away that extra money from women; it's about re-directing that money to address the discrimination.

This isn't even voicing my opinion. This is just a question. And if your opinion is that "No, we should just use the $$$ to pay off women, instead of using it to address the underlying discrimination," then fair enough, end of discussion. But so far you've tried every possible way to avoid these questions.

All you've provided is a series of dismissive comments, not arguments. Let's see your 4 "arguments":

a) opinion is not a basis for logical argument

A generic comment that says nothing about the specific topic we are discussing. You can walk into any debate room and shout out that sentence. Not to mention, opinion is separate from logic, so it can't even be used as a basis for logic. Read your sentence over again. Doesn't matter what my opinion is, they are subjective, and will never form a logical objective argument. The logic is separate.

b) "...I have responded to all of what little logic you actually have used"

Simply saying that, without actually doing it, is meaningless. You aren't even willing to answer a few simple questions I've posed, and that's very telling.

c) rewards are not the same as benefits, benefits are inherently exclusive

Irrelevant. Benefit or reward or whatever, paying women with extra cash isn't addressing the underlying discrimination.

d) you sound as though you're talking to yourself.

And yet you are responding so fervently. Another generic comment. You actually listed this as one of your 4 "arguments"?

Bottom line: you can disagree, or try to dismiss my arguments as nonsense, but at the end of the day: who is the one refusing to answer a few simple questions? It's you.

Let it go dude. Your analogies aren't simplifying the issue but are contrived to magnify your_opinion_. As I mention several posts prior: a) opinion is not a basis for logical argument; b) " . . . I have responded to all of what little logic you actually have used"; c) rewards are not the same as benefits, benefits are inherently exclusive; d) you sound as though you're talking to yourself.

I also said this is complex task and to better define your question(s) as this is a complex issue. I already offered several options for your position yet you continue to argue with false analogies of exclusive schools (which already exist among several minorities, religious organisations, social groups in the processes they use to discriminate eligable students). I'm annoyed that you keep complaining that I don't "address" your vague open ended (and somewhat disrespectful) points after I've repeatedly explained the problems in your argument's reasoning. 

Frankly I'm getting bored because this thead is seeming more like a platform you've adopted to yell your opinion from than a logical argument.

Dhalsim, again you've avoided my questions. Sure, let's adopt your philosophy of "Not arguing against something positive by means of morality." Then let me ask you:

1) Would you support a school that automatically rejects all black students?

2) If you had a choice between solutions A and B, where A gives some benefits, but B gives greater benefits, would you still select A?

3) If your choice entailed some benefits, but greater drawbacks, would you still support it?

There are a ton of things that government funding could go to, and for most of them you could argue that there is some benefit. But then again: shouldn't you prioritize the funding? If $100 million goes to research for the common cold, and $1 million goes to cancer, is that a wise choice? After all, research for the common cold is a good thing. How can anyone argue against that?

In this case of women in chess, we have some choices:

1) Pay off women with some extra cash

2) Why not use that money to set up services to help tackle the discrimination? It won't get rid of it overnight, but it's a start.

Even without the moral aspect, isn't it still better to try to tackle the root of the problem? Isn't it better to deal with the discrimination, rather than just pay off women with extra cash? By your reasoning, why don't we start paying off players from countries that are weaker in chess?

And of course, I'm still waiting for your answers regarding that black student analogy. They are just questions, so you won't be "arguing against a good thing" by answering them.  If you are not even willing to answer a few questions, then that leaves me wondering if deep down you see a contradiction with your own argument (and don't want to face up to it).

I'm not taking this issue very seriously at all because I think the position of arguing against something positive from a position of morality is out right ignorant.

"I think there's another reason for better funding in the woman's division than you say but that's irrelevant. It can't be anything but a plus that such monetary benefits have been brought to chess no matter the division; In my opinion."

Please explain how you reconcile such sentences being alongside each other...

Firstly, your opinion on the high funding of women's chess it's not "irrelvent" if it's the actual topic of discussion. Then you say immediately after that regardless of your lack of reasoning, your position is correct anyway despite whatever debates are currently happening around the issue? If you're not even going to take this seriously, we can call it a day.

Dhalsim, nobody is saying "Take that extra $$$ from women-only prizes, toss that down the drain, and let that go to complete waste." I know what you are saying: even if the special prizes are discriminating, at least it's helping some people, hence it's a "good thing."

But by that line of argument, why not build a school that accepts only white students? This below would be the "justification" for it:

Hey, at least it's helping someone. How can it be a bad thing? We are not preventing other schools from accepting black students. We are just providing an exclusive benefit for white students at our school. Being nice to one group isn't the same as being mean to another.

How does that sound? By your reasoning ("We are benefiting group A, but we are not punishing group B"), we can justify almost all forms of discrimination.

And still, you haven't answered my questions regarding that black-student analogy. Want to give it a try? Where should the money be spent? Simply paying off the black students with cash (to "compensate" for them suffering from discrimination), or setting up services to tackle the discrimination?

I recognise where you're coming from Mike. That the benefits aren't enough for some while the rest of us aren't entited are subject to complaints for more must be annoying. All such complaints aside, I don't see any reason to be against the benefits themselves. I think there's another reason for better funding in the woman's division than you say but that's irrelevant. It can't be anything but a plus that such monetary benefits have been brought to chess no matter the division; In my opinion.

So at the end of the social-political argument of whether you think the means of discriminating entitlement versus whether the basis of that very discrimination is contradictory to another argument concerning anti discrimination, all that remains is something of benefit to the chess community and some opinionated political argument.

Dhalsim, Suker appears to be the only one actually addressing questions posed. I'd suggest you quit the argument as the point of "money doesn't solve discrimination" is still very valid. Not to mention the fact that neither Natalija nor anybody else seems to have proven that this discrimination actually comes with any negative effects. To add to that, women aren't even banned from the "normal" (or mixed) events, so in reality nothing and no oppourtunity is actually being taken away from them by this discrimination.

Under this logic, a woman using the guise of discussing prejudice, pushing for an agenda of higher prize funds exclusive to women, is nothing but pure sexism. There's absolutely no logical grounds for such a request. (see Suker's "black student" question concerning money vs. tolerance)

bottom line: Chess isn't life, and if gambling on it doesn't make you enough money, (and you refuse to sacrifice money to gain more skill) get a real job.

Having breasts may get you by in other areas of life, but this is a game of logic. It's ridiculous that women are funded simply for being worse at chess. In fact, now that I think about it, the root of the problem lies with men.

Let's be blunt for a second. The only logic under which you would ever support one inferior to yourself in a particular field is if you had an interest in their continued actions relating to such a field. Therefore, this support of women stems from a male mentality of either being afraid to be politically incorrect, or the more rash (and probably more true) reason that men who play chess often do so at the sacrifice of their social lives, and desire the company of females.

It's my assumption that females are well aware of both reasons and there are those that would continue to milk a faulty system for their own personal gain and disrespect the image of the chess community. Like I've mentioned before, the only real "problem" (and I do mean that sarcastically) women face is that the prize funds in tournaments exclusive to them (bear in mind they're in no way banned from normal tournaments) don't equal the prize funds in normal tournaments.

...Is there anything MORE greedy, and frankly sexist, than demanding the oppourtunity for double prize money based purely on your gender? Let's get real. This is and always has been an absolutely absurd discussion. Not good at chess? Find a new game! Not good at the stock markets? Don't invest! Alternatively, there are tons of media out there that would take the time out to teach you about anything at all if you'd take the time out to open your wallet.

The world doesn't come free. I know you're used to guys buying you dinners and drinks and whatever else, but if you want equality, then quit demanding special treatment. It's time for women to make up their minds. The only problem men have in this area is that they're willing to consider implementing such prejudiced nonsense purely because they're afraid to lose the company of women. Grow up. The business world is not a place where your insecurities are free to run the show. You should not be "nice" to people that aren't nice to you. Demanding double prize money based on gender is such a case. It's ridiculous and should be dismissed as such. There's absolutely nothing rude about disregarding prejudice.

"The benefits are still part of a prize pool and means of obtaining that is to win through competition. So there are better funds and restrictions against strong players who would otherwise enter and so the incentive for those eligable is higher and therefore encourages players to attend who might otherwise not. Still better, is the fact that some of these players can enter and be more optimistic about their chances. How is that a bad thing?"

Didn't you read my whole post? Start reading from the part that says "The flip side of that argument would be..." and ending with "So I'm not completely against these special benefits."

"Also, why should the situation be rectified?"

The situation should be rectified because this is not a permanent solution. Are we just going to pay off women with extra cash, and pretend that's a "fair trade" for the discrimination?

Try answering the questions I asked you in my previous post, regarding the discrimination against a minority student in school. Tell me, which approach would you take to tackle the problem? By paying the student with money, or trying to address the actual discrimination?

"the presense of a benefit (in this case) encourages incentive toward earning rewards."

It actually discourages them from earning rewards. One of the other problems of these benefits is that women chess players can earn a decent living without extremely high ratings. In other words, the extra benefits ensure that you don't have to be as good in order to earn as much money.

The benefits are still part of a prize pool and means of obtaining that is to win through competition. So there are better funds and restrictions against strong players who would otherwise enter and so the incentive for those eligable is higher and therefore encourages players to attend who might otherwise not. Still better, is the fact that some of these players can enter and be more optimistic about their chances. How is that a bad thing? Also, why should the situation be rectified?

I replied to everything in your previous post which was logical, ie. not based on opinion.

"the presense of a benefit (in this case) encourages incentive toward earning rewards."

It actually discourages them from earning rewards. One of the other problems of these benefits is that women chess players can earn a decent living without extremely high ratings. In other words, the extra benefits ensure that you don't have to be as good in order to earn as much money.

If a university gave out straight A's to almost everyone, would there be much incentive to study hard? (Of course, you can't take this to an extreme and say "Take away 99% of the funding for chess. Then everyone will become 3000+ rated." That wouldn't work.)

The flip side of that argument is: if you don't give them extra benefits, then there wouldn't be any women chess players left. So I'm not completely against these special benefits, but there has to be a balance, and we have to remember that these special benefits are only a temporary fix.

Let me ask you a question: If a minority student has trouble at school due to discrimination from other students, what should the school do to address this?

1) Pay the student (or his/her parents) some money, and call it even.

OR

2) Set up services to help him/her cope (counseling, language programs, etc.), and to help change the discriminating views of fellow students.

And extending upon that: if someone were to write an article titled "Discrimination of black students in school," should the focus of the article be on:

1) The actual discrimination faced by black students.

OR

2) How much money should be paid to the black students in order to shut them up and get them to stop complaining.

This is the same case with women in chess. They are basically being paid off with extra money in exchange for tolerating discrimination. While some women are responding "Nice, we'll take the money." Others are saying "This doesn't solve the problem. Stop taking the focus away from that. We want real equality."

So it's the criteria for discriminating who is eligable that you're against, because those who are eligable haven't earned it. Benefits and rewards work differently and the presense of a benefit (in this case) encourages incentive toward earning rewards.

I understand that it's human nature to accept those special benefits. I don't even mind some special benefits to a reasonable extent, so long as they are recognized as a temporary make-do, not a permanent solution.

With an article titled "Women vs Men," Natalia had a great chance to bring to light the discrimination faced by women. I was expecting to hear some anecdotes, some stories about facing this discrimination from a woman's side, maybe an uncomfortable incidence she experienced in the past. Instead, after reading through the article, and tons of forum comments, all I hear about is "special benefits, special prizes, etc." What happened to the discrimination? You know, the root of this whole problem? Ultimately, one has to wonder: Do you really want to bring light to the discrimination, or are you simply asking for more special benefits?

"If you have a gripe with those who are willing to accept the benefits on whatever basis, then you're really against the availability of there being a/any benefit(s)."

There's a difference between "accepting a benefit that's given to you based on your skills" versus "complaining that you don't have enough exclusive benefits already, and want even more because you were born a female." See the fallacy? By your reasoning, anyone who disagrees with discrimination is also against the existence of having any benefits.

You say that a "benefit is inherently exclusive," but there's a difference between a benefit that excludes based on gender, versus a benefit that excludes based on your skills, for example. A university that prefers an A-grade student over a C-grade student, is giving [exclusive] benefits, but would you compare that to a school that prefers boys over girls, or vice versa?

"And in holding that opinion, you're saying this means of discriminating who is eligable is invalid and thus you're saying my opinion is better than theirs (another fallacy in logic, and null argument)."

I'm saying all means of discrimination is invalid. And if I thought my opinion was superior, then I wouldn't be even discussing this at all. I wouldn't even be listening to what others have to say.

"So the argument becomes less about the benefit and more about the selection criteria [as I've already outlined a benefit is inherently exclusive] and the argument is this: How is a benefit offered/declined on a unified basis (gender) while excluding (dividing) others on the same basis. An obvious fallacy in logic."

Remember, the special benefits are optional. This is not about designing better selection criteria. We are not forcing women like Judit Polgar to accept those benefits. They are completely optional. But the conflict is still there. The point is that they feel insulted by the fact that women (any woman) are offered these exclusive benefits. Unless you remove gender from the selection criteria, that won't solve the conflict.

Dhalsim, "I don't think you fully grasp the concept of sexism as much as you do prejudice. Also you made so many assumptions already that you sound as though you're talking to yourself."

Details please? If you don't agree, then try to provide a fuller explanation. Personally, I'm not sure what you are getting at. I've gotten a few other people to read your comments, hoping to gleam some meaning from it, and none of them knows what you are trying to say.

How about I re-phrase my point like this: Based on my personal experience, there are at least two opinions amongst women (and men):

1) First opinion, is that women should be treated equally as men in chess, meaning no stereotypes, no prejudice, but also, no special prizes/benefits/etc. They are an insult to women's intellect.

2) Second opinion, is that women should receive special prizes/benefits, .

There are other categories (e.g.: people who don't care, or those who think men should get special benefits for some bizarre reason, or just downright sexist people who think women shouldn't belong in chess), but the two above are the ones I see most often.

Now, given those conflicting opinions, how would you design the system to satisfy both? Dhalsim, this is the 3rd time I've asked this, and you've yet again avoided the question. But that's understandable, because personally I don't see a good answer. I think playing around with the system won't solve the problem.

Does that sound fair enough?

(Somehow, I still half-expect Dhalsim to come up with a simple dismissive line like "You are assuming too much. You don't understand. And you are a sexist.")

suckerpunch333: First, care to explain what is exactly sexist about my comments? Men also fall into those two categories as well, so am I now sexist against men? Remember, we are talking about what changes can be made to satisfy women like Natalia and Judit Polgar. These changes don't affect men. Make sense now?

I don't think you fully grasp the concept of sexism as much as you do prejudice. Also you made so many assumptions already that you sound as though you're talking to yourself.

The article IS rather obnoxious...even the quote at the beginning is borderline trolling. There's absolutely no original problem mentioned that male chess players don't face as well for the duration of the article (aside from the "problem" of not obtaining norms in special women's only tournaments).

Is there a way to report an article to chess.com to have it taken down for sexism? It is rather offensive to members of the chess community to have such ideas and suggestions put forth as acceptable. Chess is supposed to be a game of logic and whose mind is stronger. I don't see what gender has to do with an intellectual passtime or prize money.