Why is there a Women's World Championship?

pawn to E4

In theory it's great, in practice it depends.  In any case every time we interact with each other we make allowances, so I'm not sure I buy into this sort of morality by means of subjecting others to your values.  A sort of pacifist approach that assigns inaction a neutral value... I can see that argument but don't agree with it myself ;)

It's been a while since philosophy 101 (where you get a lot of different views) but Kant's greatest good for the greatest number seems to make sense.  By taking the bread you cause perhaps even negligible harm to prevent (cause less) suffering/death... that sort of thing.

A marketing ploy that, amazingly enough, snubs the gender issue.

I think it should be.

Trysts, I totally agree, it's individual.  But we are faced with is the statistical reality that potential to reach the top increases significantly with the increase of the pool.  While there's no doubt that any individual will have to subject himself/herself to the most grueling training, those people don't show up out of thin air and out of 1000 people with the desire, only a couple, if that many will make it.  So you need 1000s upon 1000s of potential prospects with that desire.  J. Polgar is an anomaly, just as Paul Morphy had been in becoming a world champion in 1860 America. Anomalies happen. The female pool is teeny tiny, though far beyond what it was years ago.  The key, to me, is to increase the pool by whatever means.  Women tournaments have and do increase the pool.  There are reasons, whatever they might be, that women tend to participate more in separate events, but it seems true that they do.  Now, there's a price paid for this. We are aware of these prices, so I won't try to enumerate. Sure there are other ways to go about things, but I don't think this was is invalid, nor do I think that the money diverted from general chess for prizes is so devastating.  That a man is WC doesn't say anything for men in general anymore than J. Polgar being a whiz makes me a better player. But the reason for lower ratings/ranking of women in general does, I feel, lie in statistics and the only way to bolster the situation is to change the statistically input.

I tend to disagree but appreciate your input.  This + trysts post = very good

So they can actually win a tournament.

Hi wafflemaster :)

Since we are talking about philosophy, I will ask you a different question:

"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"

The classic trolley problem, allowing you to kill one to save five, in a nasty way. Would you do it? Again, I wouldn't do it based on the principle that I shouldn't force someone to believe in "kill one to save five," even if that's what I personally believe. Maybe you would steal the bread, but would you push the guy?

If you are aware of the original question (before the fat man is introduced), note that I would then, indeed, kill the one.

Hehe, fun question ;)  I've heard the version you're on a plane that will kill a city's worth of people and to stop it you have to shoot through the human shield of a terrorist and it may be a child or family member etc.

To me that's a lose lose situation because I don't see inaction as neutral.  I hope I'd be able to kill the few to save the many.  I see people's role in events as an active one.  We can make things better or worse.  Doing nothing when we can make a difference isn't best IMO.

When you set it as someone you know or a child, it brings in added morality values... we feel strongly about our local communities esp. friends and family.  Weighing them against strangers is difficult.  I'm not saying I'd sacrifice people on the spot, but I think I'd regret it later if I didn't.

... and that's only if it's a sure thing.  For example if a criminal wanted me to do _____ to save the life of his captive it's likely I wouldn't because the choice is his and I don't see my action as having much influence there.  Never an easy choice anyway.

"The key, to me, is to increase the pool by whatever means." Batgirl

This is the crux of where we disagree. You want to use whatever means necessary to increase the amount of female players, whereas I only want to do it "softly," maybe by being nice to them, encouraging, but without giving them extra advantages unavailable to the males. That's why I brought up the philosophy (I know it was extreme, and I apologize in case, but it still demonstrates how we fundamentally disagree), as our ranking of our values is what determines our positions here.

Wafflemaster: Would you really be able to, with authoritative force, push that guy, though? :)

The fat guy would, likely, have already sent me hurtling to my death. 

That adds another wrinkle.  Do you hang around and let the fat guy throw you off the bridge to save five people you don't know, or do you run like the wind to save yourself?

Although it's funny there's a bit of conflict there.  In an ideal world I think pacifism is good, but I'm arguing against it (for practical reasons).

In an ideal world I think chess shouldn't take gender into account, and I argue for it... while the detractors cite practical reasons.  Maybe in time I'll go over to their side :p

Although the greater practical harm I see is the gender stereotyping it can't help but support by its nature.  Maybe I'm overestimating it.

Or course, by "whatever means," I'm not endorsing the wholesale homicide of male players. . .

I'd steal the fat guy's bread, shove him off the bridge, then go give the bread to the five idiots standing on the railroad track.

It all depends on how much you believe the ends justify the means. I think sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't!

I find the best wording of that problem is that the trolley cart is hurtling towards five people, but you can pull the switch to kill only one.  Using the term "fat guy" would add the problem of negative stereotyping on top of everything else.

Haha, I like that one, but it seems easier to answer from a philosophical POV as many societies thought the ages have deemed self sacrifice to be among the greatest morally wholesome things a person can do.

In all honesty, I'd likely rationalize a reason not to sacrifice myself, and let the trolly full of people die.  If it were more people or people I knew it would be harder though.

Oh, that's considerate :D

This new theme, however, would push the fat guy after the trolley had passed.

Well, I think the fat man represents a guy who is not a jerk or anything, but is just a pretty normal guy who isn't going to do anything particularly productive like cure cancer. The question is trying to ask you if the way that the one person is being killed matters; does the fact that you are physically pushing off a man result in a different decision than if you were just pulling a switch?